Motorcycle deployment and rider characteristics on Victorian farms

Aust. J. Rural Health (2006) 14, 190–195

© 2006 The AuthorsJournal Compilation © 2006 National Rural Health Alliance Inc. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2006.00807.x

Blackwell Publishing AsiaMelbourne, AustraliaAJRAustralian Journal of Rural Health1038-52822006 National Rural Health Alliance Inc.? 2006145190195Original ArticleMOTORCYCLES ON VICTORIAN FARMSL. DAY ET AL.

Correspondence: Dr Lesley Day, Accident Research Centre,Building 70, Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton,Victoria 3800, Australia. Email: [email protected]

Accepted for publication 14 July 2006.

Original Article

Motorcycle deployment and rider characteristics on Victorian farmsLesley Day, Voula Stathakis and Mary O’Hare

Monash University Accident Research Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

AbstractObjective: To describe the motorcycle fleet and ridercharacteristics on Victorian farms.Design: Cross-sectional postal survey.Setting: Victorian agricultural industries.Participants: A total of 1382 randomly selected farm-ers in 2001.Main outcome measures: Farm motorcycle characteris-tics, use and maintenance schedule; motorcycle ridercharacteristics, respondent demographics and propertycharacteristics.Results: A total of 70% of farms had motorcycles, withan average of 1.7 per property. A total of 49% werefour-wheel, and 44% were two-wheel. The averageengine size and age were 255 cc and 8.8 years, respec-tively. The milk cattle sector owned the largest share ofthe motorcycle fleet and cereal/grain farms the smallestshare. Four-wheel motorcycles were often used acrossthe entire spectrum of agricultural tasks. Two-wheelmotorcycle use was concentrated more on musteringand transport. A total of 61% of farms performedmotorcycle maintenance every 1–6 months. Fifteen percent of riders were under 15 years of age, and the major-ity (71%) rode four-wheel motorcycles. A total of 29%of all riders had received some form of motorcycletraining.Conclusions: This study provides useful information onstate-level patterns of farm motorcycle use, as well asthe key safety behaviours of rider training and motor-cycle maintenance. This information might serve asbaseline data for future monitoring and surveillance,and might assist with planning of prevention programs.

KEY WORDS: all-terrain vehicle, farm, injury,maintenance, motorcycle, training.

IntroductionMotorcycles are an integral component of modern farmlife and are often used as a substitute for tractors, horsesand utilities.1 These vehicles are used for various agri-cultural tasks, such as mustering, spraying, transportand towing.2 However, motorcycles are also a leadingfarm injury agent.3–5 In Australia, there were 33 farmwork-related motorcycle deaths for the period 1989–1992, with 24 of these attributed to two-wheel motor-cycles and nine to both three- and four-wheel all-terrainvehicles (ATVs).5 In addition, each year there areapproximately 400–500 hospital admissions associatedwith farm motorcycle injury.2 Similarly, state farminjury profiles indicate the prominence of motorcyclesas an injury agent.6–11

Although the patterns of farm bike injury are rela-tively well described,1,12–14 there are scarce publisheddata on the farm motorcycle fleet, its deployment andmaintenance, or on the characteristics of the riding pop-ulation.15 Estimates of the number of motorcycles cur-rently in use on Australian farms are hampered by theabsence of licensing or registration requirements, andsale statistics fail to capture the number of old vehiclesalready in use.1,2 The aim of the present study was toidentify for the first time the characteristics, use andmaintenance of the Victorian farm motorcycle fleet, aswell as the characteristics of its riders.

MethodAs part of the Victorian Farm Injury and SafetySurveys,16 a cross-sectional postal survey of Victorianfarm owners/operators was conducted in the winter of2001. Potential participants (n = 3200) were randomlyselected from a commercially available list (PrimeProspects List Marketing, Victoria, n = 39 960). The listwas compiled using public information sourced fromgovernment departments, market research and thesponsor’s own customer and prospect lists.

The questionnaire, previously piloted,1 included thefollowing variables relevant to motorcycles: number of

MOTORCYCLES ON VICTORIAN FARMS 191

© 2006 The AuthorsJournal Compilation © 2006 National Rural Health Alliance Inc.

motorcycles on the farm; characteristics of up to fourmotorcycles (size, type, year of manufacture and year ofpurchase); main uses for each motorcycle; maintenanceschedule; characteristics of riders (age, training and typeof bike ridden); demographic characteristics and prop-erty characteristics.

The questionnaire was mailed with a supporting letterfrom Farmsafe Victoria. Reminders were sent within2 weeks, and 1 month after the initial mail-out. Promo-tional activities, including media releases, articles inregional newspapers and industry publications, andletters to major stakeholders, supported the survey.

The Monash University Standing Committee onEthics in Research Involving Humans approved thestudy.

Data were analysed using frequency distributions andproportions. As data representing motorcycle character-istics such as engine size, motorcycle age and years ofownership were not normally distributed, differences inmedians between groups were analysed using non-parametric tests. Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to com-pare motorcycle characteristics between all commoditygroups (four groups), while Mann–Whitney testsallowed for bivariate comparisons between specificcommodity groups versus all other farm properties com-bined (two groups). Due to multiple comparisons beingmade for both types of analyses, a Bonferroni correctionof alpha = 0.001 was used to minimise Type I errors.

Results

Respondents

Completed surveys were returned by 1382 eligiblerespondents (50% response rate). The majority weremale (93%), with an average age of 53.9 years, wereowner-operators (95%) and had over 20 years of farm-ing experience (78%). A large proportion of properties

(79%) were less than 500 hectares, similar to theVictorian profile.17 We had previously established thatnon-respondents were very similar to respondents withrespect to property size, years in farming and commod-ity group. Further, there were no significant differencesbetween the two groups on the level of engagement infarm safety.16

The commodity profile of the survey sample was com-pared with that of all farms in Victoria in 2001.18 Therank order of the top four commodities for Victoria andthe survey sample was identical although these com-modity groups were slightly overrepresented in the sur-vey sample (beef cattle 25.7% vs. 22.0%; dairy cattle22.4% vs. 21.6%; sheep 14.0% vs. 11.4%; and cerealgrains 11.6% vs. 9.1%). The survey sample was consid-ered similar enough to all farms in Victoria to beregarded as at least broadly indicative.

Motorcycle fleet

Seventy per cent of the farms surveyed owned motorcy-cles. Among the four main commodity groups, milkcattle industries owned the highest number of motorcy-cles, while cereal/grain farms owned the smallest num-ber (Table 1).

Comprehensive vehicular information was collectedfor the first four motorcycles kept on the property(Table 2). Forty-nine per cent of the motorcycle fleetcomprised four-wheel ATVs, 44% were two-wheelmotorcycles and 2% were three-wheel ATVs. (Five percent of responses were missing for the number of wheelson the motorcycle). All further references to ATVs relateto four-wheel motorcycles, unless otherwise stated.ATVs had more powerful engines, overall, than two-wheel motorcycles: 37% of ATVs were under 300 cccompared with 91% of two-wheelers. ATVs were newerthan two-wheel motorcycles, with 35% manufactured

What is already known on this subject:• Motorcycles are an integral component of

modern farm life. Although the patternsof farm bike injury are relatively welldescribed, there are scarce published data onthe farm motorcycle fleet, its deploymentand maintenance, or on the characteristics ofthe riding population. These data wouldfacilitate interpretation of injury patterns,allow comparison of the characteristics ofthe general farm bike rider population, withthose of injured farm bike riders, andprovide direction for prevention programs.

What this paper adds:• This cross-sectional survey in Victoria

showed that 70% of farms ownedmotorcycles in 2001. The motorcycle fleetwas composed of almost equal proportionsof two-wheel (44%) and four-wheel (49%)motorcycles. Four-wheel motorcycles hadmore powerful engines and were newer thantwo-wheel motorcycles. The milk cattlesector owned the largest share of themotorcycle fleet. Fifteen per cent of riderswere under 15 years of age, and 29% of allriders had received some form of motorcycletraining.

192 L. DAY ET AL.


TABLE 1: Number of motorcycles on farms, Victorian Farm Injury and Safety Survey, 2001

All farms Milk cattle sheep Meat cattle Cereal/grains

No. farms 971 284 137 210 115Total no. bikes 1606 521 223 332 172Average no. bikes(SD) (SE)

1.7 (0.9) (0.0)

1.8(1.1) (0.1)

1.6 (0.9) (0.1)

1.6 (1.0) (0.1)

1.5 (0.7) (0.1)

The data in the table above pertain to all motorcycles on the property.

TABLE 2: Motorcycle fleet-selected characteristics, Victorian Farm Injury and Safety Survey, 2001

Characteristic All Two-wheel Four-wheel

All farms (1585 bikes) (704 bikes) (775 bikes)Average size (cc)(SD) (SE)

255.4(177.1) (4.8)

205.9(180.0) (7.0)

308.5(165.3) (6.4)

Average age (years)(SD) (SE)

8.8(7.2) (0.2)

11.6(8.1) (0.3)

5.9(4.8) (0.2)

Average ownership period (years)(SD) (SE)

7.0(6.3) (0.2)

9.1(7.3) (0.3)

4.9(4.3) (0.2)

Milk cattle (509 bikes) (165 bikes) (324 bikes)Average size (cc)(SD) (SE)

277.7(207.5) (9.9)

196.0(103.6) (8.5)

323.8(237.7) (14.2)


5.5(5.1) (0.3)

7.6(6.4) (0.5)

4.4(3.9) (0.2)


4.7(4.7) (0.2)

6.1(5.9) (0.5)

3.8(3.5) (0.2)

Sheep (235 bikes) (123 bikes) (98 bikes)Average size (cc)(SD) (SE)

259.4(205.1) (14.2)

243.2(269.4) (25.3)

286.5(65.6) (7.0)


10.8(7.4) (0.5)

13.6(8.1) (0.8)

7.2(4.8) (0.5)


8.5(6.4) (0.5)

10.6(7.0) (0.7)

5.7(4.3) (0.5)

Meat cattle (323 bikes) (168 bikes) (131 bikes)Average size (cc) (SD) (SE)

249.1(165.9) (9.9)

207.1(197.9) (15.8)

311.8(82.3) (7.9)


9.7(7.2) (0.4)

12.1(7.9) (0.7)

6.7(4.7) (0.4)


7.5(6.5) (0.4)

9.4(7.3) (0.6)

5.3(4.5) (0.4)

Cereal/grains (170 bikes) (107 bikes) (54 bikes)Average size (cc)(SD) (SE)

215.0(126.6) (10.0)

185.8(143.3) (14.1)

275.8(55.7) (8.0)


11.8(7.5) (0.6)

13.2(7.9) (0.8)

8.2(5.4) (0.8)


9.5(7.2) (0.6)

10.9(7.7) (0.8)

6.2(4.6) (0.6)

The data in the above table pertains to the first four motorcycles kept on the property.



before 1995 compared with 65% of two-wheelmotorcycles.

There were statistically significant differences onengine size, motorcycle age and years of ownership(Kruskal–Wallis tests P < 0.001 for all these three items)between all commodity groups.

Among the four main commodity groups, the milkcattle sector owned the most powerful (average size of277 cc) and newest motorcycles (average age of5.5 years), and cereal/grain farms owned the least pow-erful (average size of 215 cc) and oldest (average age of11.8 years) vehicles (Mann–Whitney tests P < 0.001).

Commodity groups differed significantly for bothtwo- and four-wheelers on motorcycle age and years ofownership (P < 0.001 for both), but not on engine size(P = 0.107 and 0.018, respectively). Milk cattle farmshad twice as many ATVs as two-wheel motorcycles(2:1), while cereal/grain farms had the opposite ratio ofATVs to two-wheel motorcycles (1:2) (Table 2). Again,milk cattle properties had newer ATVs and two-wheelmotorcycles compared with all other properties(P < 0.001), while cereal/grain farms had much oldermotorcycles (ATVs and two-wheel motorcycles)(P < 0.001). Differences in engine sizes for these groupswere not statistically significant. Similar comparisonsregarding the same motorcycle characteristics for meatcattle and sheep properties did not result in statisticallysignificant differences at the alpha level of 0.001.

Motorcycle use

All-terrain vehicles were most frequently used for awider range of tasks compared with two-wheel motor-cycles, and a clear demarcation in the types of tasksoften undertaken was apparent (Fig. 1). Among the fourmajor commodity groups, an almost identical patternemerged, with higher use of ATVs across all agriculturaltasks except recreation, and the almost exclusive use ofATVs for spraying and towing. The sheep industriesused both two- and four-wheel motorcycles more often

for mustering than the other commodity groups, whilethe milk cattle sector reported higher use of these twoclasses of vehicles for transport.

Maintenance

The majority (61%) of all farms undertook motorcyclemaintenance at least every 6 months, with 33% under-taking maintenance every 1–3 months. There was littledifference in the overall pattern of maintenance amongthe commodity groups.

Motorcycle riders

A total of 2513 motorcycle riders were identified. Over-all, 29% had undergone some form of motorcycle train-ing. In general, the percentage trained in each age groupdecreased as age increased (Table 3).

Among the four main commodity groups, the highestlevels of training occurred on cereal grain (33%) andmilk cattle farms (32%), followed by meat cattle (29%)and sheep farms (20%). Sheep farms had the lowestpercentage of trained riders in each age group from theage of 15 years onwards (Fig. 2). Patterns of trainingdiffered across commodities. For example, on cereal/grain farms, training levels peaked for the age group of10–14 years, whereas for the meat cattle industries, thepercentage of trained riders was highest among the agegroup of 20–39 years.

Without exception, higher percentages of riders fromeach age category rode ATVs compared with two-wheelmotorcycles (Fig. 3). Adolescents aged 15–19 yearsreported the highest use of two-wheel motorcycles (54%of these riders), while the highest use of ATVs wasrecorded for children under the age of 10 years (73%of riders in this age group).

FIGURE 1: Tasks often performed by two- (�) and four-wheel ( ) motorcycles, Victorian Farm Injury and Safety Survey, 2001.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

MusteringTasks

Per

cen

tag

e o

f m

oto

rcyc

les

TowingSprayingCarryingRecreationTransport

TABLE 3: Motorcycle riders, Victorian Farm Injury and Safety Survey, 2001

Age group (years)Ridersn (%)

Trained ridersn (%)*

<10 113 (5) 45 (40)10–14 243 (10) 88 (36)15–19 269 (11) 101 (38)20–39 666 (27) 209 (31)40–64 1024 (41) 268 (26)65–74 167 (7) 24 (14)75+ 31 (1) 3 (10)All 2513† 738 (29)

*The percentage of trained riders in each age group; †totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

194 L. DAY ET AL.


DiscussionWe found that 70% of farms surveyed owned motorcy-cles, with an average of 1.7 vehicles per property. Themotorcycle fleet comprised four-wheel (49%), two-wheel (44%) and three-wheel (2%) motorcycles. ATVshad more powerful engines and were newer than two-wheel motorcycles. The milk cattle farms owned thelargest share of the motorcycle fleet as well as the mostpowerful and the newest vehicles. Cereal grain farms,on the other hand, owned the smallest share of the fleetand the oldest and least powerful machines. Overall,ATVs were often used across the entire spectrum ofagricultural tasks, whereas two-wheel motorcycle usewas concentrated more on mustering and transport.ATVs were primarily used as a work vehicle only,whereas two-wheel motorcycles served as both workand leisure vehicles. Overall, 29% of riders had receivedsome form of motorcycle training. The cereal/grain sec-tor had the highest percentage of trained riders, and thesheep industries had the lowest. The majority of farms(61%) performed motorcycle maintenance at least every6 months.

There were a number of similarities to another pub-lished Australian study.1 The majority of Victorian andAustralian farms owned at least one motorcycle, usedtwo- and four-wheel motorcycles for similar tasks, anddemonstrated similar patterns of ownership among thefour main commodity groups. In contrast, the Victorianfarm motorcycles tended to be older than the nationalaverage.1 Similar to research in the United States,19

Victorian farmers used ATVs predominantly for farmwork rather than recreational purposes.

In the present study, 14% of the total riding popula-tion was less than 15 years of age, a very high propor-tion of whom rode ATVs (71%). Less than 1% of ATVs(n = 6) had an engine size less than 90 cc, indicating thatmost young riders are riding adult-sized vehicles. A sim-ilar profile has been reported in the USA.20

We found a higher proportion of Victorian farmershad undertaken motorcycle training (29%), comparedwith that previously reported in a national study(2.3%).1 The training source in our study was notspecified and may have included informal training,whereas the national study had included trainingcourses only.

Despite the relatively low response rate, responsebias is likely to be minimal, and the distribution of thefour main commodity groups was very close to that forVictoria, suggesting that the sample is broadly indica-tive of Victorian farmers. Detailed information on farmmotorcycles was obtained for the first four bikes kepton the farm. This is not likely to have unduly influ-enced the results, as only 21 motorcycles or 1% of thetotal fleet were excluded for this reason. Hours ofriding exposure for ATV and two-wheel riders werenot collected, which would be useful for determiningthe relative risks of injury when riding two- and four-wheel bikes. The responding adult reported on ridingpatterns of children on the property. While there are nolegal age restrictions for riding farm bikes on privateproperty in Australia, there is still the possibility ofparental underreporting due to the social desirabilitybias. These effects were minimised through the ano-nymity of a postal survey.

The present study provided useful information onstate-level patterns of farm motorcycle ownership anduse, as well as on the key safety behaviours of ridertraining and motorcycle maintenance. This informationmight serve as baseline data for future monitoring andsurveillance of Victoria’s farm motorcycle fleet, and withplanning for prevention programs. The data will alsofacilitate the later calculation of fatality and injury ratesby providing suitable denominator figures, and willallow comparisons to be made in future state-basedinjury studies between the characteristics of injury casesand those of the general population of farm motorcycleriders.

FIGURE 2: Trained riders in the four main commodity groups by age, Victorian Farm Injury and Safety Survey, 2001. (�) meat, ( ) milk, ( ) sheep, ( ) cereal.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

<10Age group (years)

Per

cen

tag

e o

f ri

der

s

75+65–7440–6420–3915–1910–14

FIGURE 3: Percentage of riders in each age group that ride two- ( ) and four-wheel (�) motorcycles, Victorian Farm Injury and Safety Survey, 2001.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Age (years)

Per

cen

tag

e o

f ri

der

s

<10 75+65–7440–6420–3915–1910–14



AcknowledgementsThis research was funded by the R&D Corporationscontributing to the Farm Health and Safety JointResearch Venture: RIRDC; Grains Research andDevelopment; Australian Wool Innovation Limited;Cotton Research and Development Corporation; SugarResearch and Development Corporation; and Meat andLivestock Australia.

References1 Schalk T, Fragar LJ. Injury Associated with Farm

Motorcycles in Australia. Moree: Australian Centre forAgricultural Health and Safety, 2000. Publication No: 00.

2 Fragar LJ, Franklin RC. The Health and Safety ofAustralia’s Farming Community. Moree: ACAHS &RIRDC, 2000.

3 Marshall SW, Clarke J, Langley JD, Cryer PC. Overviewof injury on New Zealand farms. Journal of AgriculturalSafety and Health 1996; 2: 175–190.

4 Rivara FP. Fatal and non-fatal farm injuries to childrenand adolescents in the United States, 1990–3. Injury Pre-vention 1997; 3: 190–194.

5 Franklin RC, Mitchell R, Driscoll T, Fragar LJ. Farm-Related Fatalities in Australia 1989–1992. Moree:ACAHS, NOHSC & RIRDC, 2000.

6 Franklin RC, Fragar LJ, Page AN. The Health and Safetyof South Australian Farmers, Farm Families and FarmWorkers. Moree: Australian Agricultural Unit, 1999.

7 Day L, Ashby K, Stathakis V. Unintentional farm injury.Hazard 1997; 33: 1–16.

8 Australian Agricultural Health Unit. Agbike and AllTerrain Vehicles Injury Profile. November 1990–October1991. Moree: North West Farmsafe, 1992.

9 Ferguson K. Survey of Farm Work Injury and OperationalProcedure on Farms in Queensland to Assist Intervention

Planning by Farm Safety Action Groups and Industry.Brisbane: Department of Training and Industrial Rela-tions, 1996, QDE-1A.

10 Mather C, Lower T. Farm injury in Tasmania. AustralianJournal of Rural Health 2001; 9: 209–215.

11 Franklin RC, Fragar LJ. The Health and Safety of WesternAustralian Farmers, Farm Families and Farm Workers.Moree: ACAHS & RIRDC, 2002.

12 Haworth N, Ozanne-Smith J, Fox B, Brumen I.Motorcycle-Related Injuries to Children and Adolescents.Melbourne: Monash University Accident research Centre,1994. Report No. 56.

13 Van Muiswinkel WJ. Options for Improvement in FarmMotorcycle Safety. Literature Review. Moree: AustralianAgricultural Health Unit, 1994.

14 Stueland D, Zoch T. Off road vehicular injuries in CentralWisconsin: farm residents versus non-farm residents.Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 1995; 1: 159–163.

15 Warda L, Klassen TP, Buchan N, Zierler A. All terrainvehicle ownership, use, and self reported safety behav-iours in rural children. Injury Prevention 1998; 4: 44–49.

16 Day L, Stathakis V. Evaluation of Farm Injury PreventionPrograms. Canberra: RIRDC Publication, 2004. No. 03/139.

17 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Agriculture,Victoria 1996–97. Cat. No. 7113.2. August 1998.

18 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Agricultural Com-modities, Australia 2000–01. Cat. No. 7121.0. December2002.

19 Zwerling C, Merchant JA, Nordstrom DL, StromquistAM, Burmeister LF, Reynolds SJ, Kelly KM. Risk factorsfor injury in rural Iowa. American Journal of PreventiveMedicine 2001; 20: 230–233.

20 Rodgers GB. The characteristics and use patterns ofall-terrain vehicle drivers in the United States. AccidentAnalysis and Prevention 1999; 31: 409–419.

Motorcycle deployment and rider characteristics on Victorian farms

Documents

Transcript of Motorcycle deployment and rider characteristics on Victorian farms