| 摘要: | 近年來，由於國內交通運輸需求快速成長，使得汽機車數量與日俱增，而衍生出許多道路交通安全的問題。儘管歷年A1類肇事事件數之車種，主要以機踏車為主。但若以平均數比較，根據101年資料，每一千輛大客車，便有0.93輛發生事故，位居第二，僅次於大貨車。由此可知，大客車可視為具有高肇事風險的車種類別。然而，又對於交通事故原因歸類，主要以汽(機、慢)車駕駛人過失為主。換言之，交通肇事的發生多來自於駕駛者本身因素所產生的駕駛偏差行為而導致。
本研究以台灣地區48家客運業者，挑選其中30家，共有863位駕駛者參與調查，以階層線性模型進行分析，旨在探討駕駛者偏差駕駛行為的影響因素，包括：安全氣候、內在壓力與不注意。其相關量測問卷，包括專門為駕駛者修正設計之安全氣候(SCQ-MD, Wills et al., 2005)、駕駛行為量表(DBI, Westerman & Haigney, 2000)、與注意力相關的錯誤駕駛之量尺(ARDES, Ledesma et al., 2010)、駕駛行為問卷(DBQ, Reason et al., 1990)。
其結果顯示，安全氣候、內在壓力、不注意、偏差駕駛行為，彼此間具有顯著的相關性；安全氣候→內在壓力→偏差駕駛行為、安全氣候→不注意→偏差駕駛行為、安全氣候→內在壓力→不注意、內在壓力→不注意→偏差駕駛行為，皆屬於部份中介效果；安全氣候×內在壓力→偏差駕駛行為、安全氣候×不注意→偏差駕駛行為、安全氣候×內在壓力→不注意，皆不具調節效果。針對上述結果，本研究亦提出相關安全政策的討論與未來研究議題的建議。
In recent years, due to the rapid growth of the demand for transportation, making cars and motorcycles growing, and extended many traffic safety problems. The motorcycles in A1 accident the number of events is the largest. However, according to the data of 101 years, if compared to the average, each of one thousand buses will be 0.93 vehicles event of an accident, and this value is second only to the freight vehicles. Therefore, buses can be regarded as the types of vehicles having a high accident risk. However, traffic accident was mainly due to driver faults. In other words, the traffic accident occurred come from the the driver factors about aberrant driving behavior.
This study conducted a survey on 863 drivers over 30 buses from 48 buses in Taiwan, and used hierarchical linear model (HLM) to analysis data. Explore the influencing factors of drivers’ aberrant driving behavior (ADB) including safety climate (SC), stress and inattention. And about this study used measurement questionnaire including Safety Climate Questionnaire-Modified for Driver (SCQ-MD, Wills et al, 2005), Driving Behaviour Inventory (DBI, Westerman & Haigney, 2000), Attention-Related Driving Error Scale (ARDES, Ledesma et al., 2010), Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ, Reason et al., 1990).
The results showed that SC, stress, inattention, ADB, are significantly correlated with each other
SC→stress→ADB, SC→inattention→ADB, SC→stress→inattention, stress →inattention→ADB had partial mediating effect
SC×stress→ADB, SC×inattention→ADB, SC×stress→inattention didn’t have moderating effect. According the results, This study proposes some discussions about safety policy and recommendations of the research issues for the future. |
