臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在複雜的交通環境裡，對於最弱勢的用路人-行人而言，路權能受到尊重，是一件美好的事。只要小汽車駕駛人普遍都能做到停車禮讓，不僅會提升交通安全與道路順暢，更是改善社會風氣的最佳示範。其主要原因就是道路上的汽、機車數量越來越多，導致行人所受的威脅越來越大，又在有人員傷亡的交通事故之中，行人一直佔有不低之比例，而現今道路環境中停車禮讓行人的現象並不普及，究竟是駕駛人在道路上遇見行人產生不當行為時，太生氣而不願意停車禮讓?或著是行人覺得駕駛人應該要優先停車禮讓他們卻沒有做到?因此本研究的主要目的即為量測駕駛人對不當行為行人的停讓意願，找出其影響因素及行人之不當行為並加以宣導改善。
應用試題反應理論中Rasch model分析的研究結果發現，「當您行駛在快車道時，發現從前方中央分隔島闖出欲橫越道路的行人」，是最容易讓駕駛人生氣且停讓意願最低; 而「當您在交叉路口合法右轉時，從您的左側接近您，舉手示意要您讓他(們)先過的行人」，則是駕駛人欲行人發生此種不當行為時，是最不會生氣及停讓意願最高的情形。另外可得知，大多數生氣程度較高的駕駛人，其停車禮讓不當行為行人之意願也會比較高。
在所有駕駛人對於行人的不當行為中，仍然是以違規的行為較容易使駕駛人生氣，卻也最願意停車禮讓。有關單位可以依據此結果對於法規的規定範圍更加明確地修訂及加強宣導，期能提升國人之駕駛道德，做到優先禮讓所有行人，更注重行人安全，使道路交通環境愈和諧。

For the weakest road users-pedestrians in the complex traffic environment, it is a wonderful thing that their rights-of-way might be respected. If car drivers always can yield pedestrians generally, it not only raises the traffic safety and road smooth, but also sets a best example to improve society well. The main reason is there are more and more cars and motorcycles on the road, leading more threats to pedestrians. And there are highly percentage of pedestrians in traffic accidents with casualties. What types of pedestrians make car drivers angry and how do pedestrians’ traffic violations affect car drivers’ intention of yielding? The main purpose of this research is to measure car drivers intention of yielding by pedestrians’traffic violations, and to find impact factors and traffic violations of pedestrians so that government can draw up reaction strategies.
The finding applying the rasch model in Item Response Theory shows that the circumstance of easiest to angry and least intention to stop car of car drivers is “When you are driving in inner lane, you find pedestrians crossing road from traffic island in front of you”. And the circumstance of no anger and most intention to stop car of car drivers is “When you are turning right legally in intersection, you find pedestrians raising their hands to show you letting them pass on your left side”. We can also know that if car drivers with higher degree of anger, their intention of stopping car by pedestrians with undue behaviors will higher.
Traffic violations still make car drivers angry easier in all pedestrians’ traffic violation behaviors. Correlational organizations can base on the results to revise traffic laws and to publicize more. We expect to promote driving manners of road users, to yield pedestrians first, to emphasize the safety of pedestrians more and we can get a more harmonious traffic environment.

摘　要 I
Abstract II
誌　謝 III
目錄 IV
表目錄 V
圖目錄 VII
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究內容 3
1.4 研究步驟與流程 3
2.1駕駛行為影響因素 5
2.2 行人 6
2.3 文獻小結 11
第三章 研究架構與研究方法 12
3.1研究變數之定義 12
3.2 系統分析與研究架構 12
3.3 研究方法 14
第四章 問卷設計與實證分析 19
4.1 問卷設計與規劃 19
4.2 問卷初測結果 20
4.3 問卷正式施測 21
4.4 問卷構面分析 25
4.5 潛在構面之相關分析 30
4.6 各潛在變數與背景脈絡之關係 31
第五章 結論與建議 41
5.1 結論 41
5.2 建議 41
參考文獻 43
附錄一 測試問卷 46
附錄二 行人相關法規 48
簡歷 52

參考文獻
中文部分
1. 交通部，http://www.motc.gov.tw/。
2. 張新立，「重型車輛安全分析與營運大貨車肇事預防措施之研究」，交通部運輸研究所報告，民國77年。
3. 陳家福，「台北市交通違規行為分析與執法策略之研究」，國立中央警察大學，碩士論文，民國78年。
4. 謝智仁，「道路暴力行為意向之研究」，國立交通大學，碩士論文，民國91年。
5. 王建仁，「台灣地區機車使用者風險感認與駕駛行為關聯之研究」，國立交通大學，碩士論文，民國91年。
6. 葉名山、廖遠橋、詹志揚、盧鴻輝，「運用數位攝影拍攝中部地區用路人違規行為暨交通安全宣導之研究」，94年道路交通安全與執法研討會，第156-190 頁，民國94年。
7. http://db.lawbank.com.tw/FLAW/FLAWQRY01.asp。
8. 趙延祥，「應用計畫行為理論探討行人違規行為之研究」，逢甲大學，碩士論文，民國93年。
9. 藍武王、許書耕、邱裕鈞，「台北市行人交通事故之統計分析」，中華民國運輸學會第七屆學術論文研討會論文集，民國81年。
10. 林麗玉、黃燦煌，「台北市行人交通安全潛在問題與因應對策」，都市交通第74 期，民國83年。
11. 陳宗淋，「臺北市行人肇事及違規特性分析」，國立交通大學，碩士論文，民國89年。
12. 許擇基、劉長萱，試題作答理論簡介，中國行為科學社，台北，民國91年。






外文部分
1. Reason J., et al,”Errors and Violations on the road:a real distinction”.Ergonomics,33,1315-1332,1990.
2. Dianne Parker , ” Behavior characteristics and involvement in different types of traffic accident” , Accident analysis and prevention, pp571-581,1995.
3. Dianne Parker , ” Intention to Commit Driving Violations :An Appl icat ion of the Theory of Planned Behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology 77, pp94-101,1992.
4. Emilio M,D. , ” Theory of Planned behavior and pedestrian’s intention to violate traffic regulations” ,Transportation Research Part F, pp169-175,2002.
5. D. Yagil , ” Beliefs, motives and situational factors related to pedest rians’ self - reported behavior at signal -cont rolled crossing”, Transportation Research Part F3, pp1-13,2000.
6. Helene Fontaine，”Fatal Pedestrian Accidents In.France”，Accid.Anal.and Prev.，1997
7. Soren U,J.,”Pedestrian Safety in Denmark”，Ite Journal，1998
8. Ali S. Al-Ghamdi,“Pedestrian–vehicle crashes and analytical techniques for stratified contingency tables”, Accident analysis and prevention 34,pp205-214, 2002.
9. Richard C. Harruff, Anne Avery and Amy S. Alter-Pandya, “Analysis of circumstances and injuries in 217 pedestrian traffic fatalities”, Accident
analysis and prevention, pp11-20, 1998.
10. Faraz M. Khan, Munima Jawaid, Habib Chotani, Stephen Luby,“Pedestrian environment and behavior in Karachi, Pakistan”, Accident analysis and prevention 31, pp335-339, 1999.
11. Lord, F.M.,“Application of item response theory to practional testing problems. Hillsdale,”NJ :Lawrence Erlbawn Associates, 1980.
12. Hambleton, R.K., Swaminathan, H., “Item response theory: Principle and applications,”Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1983.
13. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J., “Fundamentals of item response theory,”Newburry Park, CA: SAGE, 1991.
14. Hsin-Li Chang, Shuen-Cheng Wu.,“Exploring the vehicle dependence behind mode choice: evidence of motorcycle dependence in Taipei,”,Transportation Research, Part A, Accepted August 23, 2007.
15. Duncan,P.W., Bode, R. K., Min Lai, S., Perera, S., GlycinGlycinAntagonist in Antagonist in Neuroprotection Neuroprotection Americas Americas Investigators, “Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the stroke impact scale”, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(7), pp.950 – 963, 2003.
16. Wright, B. D., “Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model”, Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, pp.97-116, 1977.
17. Elander,J.,West,R.,French,D., “Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings“,Psychol.Bull.113,pp.279-294,1993.
18. Reckase, M.D.,“Unifactor Latent Trait Models Applied to Multifactor Tests: Results and Implications,”Journal of Educational Statistics 4, pp.207-230, 1979.
19. Lumsden, J.,“The Construction of Unidimensional Tests,”Psychological Bulletin, vol58, pp.122-131, 1961.
20. Henson, “Understanding Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates: A Conceptual Primer on Coefficient Alpha “, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, vol34,issue3, pp.177-189,2001.