汽機車混合是我國道路交通車流之一大特色，其間也隱藏著汽機車行進間彼此干擾所造成之行車安全威脅。機車由於缺乏堅硬外殼保護，在交通事故中往往造成嚴重之傷亡，是現有道路使用者中極為脆弱的一群。在改善道路交通秩序與提升交通安全之工作中，如何提升機車之行車安全實為首要之課題，而其間又以了解機車駕駛者在交通車流中所面臨之交通衝突型態及其所採取之因應對策最為重要。基於上述理由，本研究乃嘗試探討機車駕駛人在面臨不同交通衝突情況時，所採取之因應駕駛對策，以供未來研擬機車相關交通安全措施之參考。
本研究首先建立機車駕駛人面臨交通衝突時之行為反應的理念架構，並依據該理念架構建立機車駕駛人面臨不同交通衝突情境及衝突刺激時之駕駛行為反應模式。本研究所考慮的刺激變數包括剩餘時間資源(TTC, Time To Collision)與障礙物寬度，並將駕駛者對交通衝突之危險感受視為干擾變數納入分析。基於實證研究之需要，本研究首先定義各變數之衡量方法，並透過實驗安排機車行進間之交通衝突情況，在市區道路上攝影取得機車駕駛人之操控車輛行為反應，最後再利用影像拮取技術記錄機車駕駛人之加減速資料及行駛方向改變量，以進行模式假設之檢定。
研究結果顯示機車駕駛者在面臨交通衝突時，如有安全顧慮則會先採取煞車減速動作，隨後才會採取偏移動作以避開衝突障礙。感受到危險的機車駕駛者比未感受到衝突危險的駕駛者需要較久的判斷思考及處理交通衝突之時間，且在進行偏移動作時也會與前車保持較為安全的時間間距。本研究亦發現機車駕駛者受到交通衝突刺激而產生的感受對機車駕駛行為具很大的影響，未來車流研究、安全模擬分析及實證資料收集上均不可忽視機車駕駛者的危險感受。

There are numerous motorcycles in Taiwan. It brings the special mixed traffic flow to Taiwan. In order to assess the traffic safety for the traffic operation strategies in Taiwan, it is really important to insight the driving maneuver behavior of motorcyclists when they encounter the traffic conflicts. This study is undertaken to explore the reaction of motorcyclists as facing the traffic conflicts based on the established conceptual framework and experimental survey.
Motorcyclists’ maneuver responses are described by a 2-phase behavior. A model that describes the relationship between the stimulus of traffic conflicts and driving maneuver reactions is then established based on the developed conceptual framework. The stimulus variables include TTC(Time To Collision) and the width of obstacle. The perception of danger for motorcyclists is also included as intermediate variable. The reactions of driving maneuver for motorcyclists as facing traffic conflicts are defined by deceleration (or acceleration) rates and the changes of driving direction. Furthermore, in order to meet the motorcyclists’ acute perception to driving environment, an experiment was designed to collect the required data over the potential traffic conflict area by 12mm camera recording.
The study results show the motorcyclists feeling unsafe will intuitively take deceleration as prime maneuver at the first phase, and then take sideways movement as avoidance maneuver at the second phase. Motorcyclists who feel the conflicts are dangerous will need more decision time or processing time before sideways movement than who doesn’t feel dangerous, and keep longer time headway when sideways moving. The study results indicate the perception of conflicting danger will significantly affect the motorcyclists’ driving behavior. Relevant traffic-flow studies, safety-assessing programs and experiment investigations should not ignore motorcyclists’ perception of danger.

第一章 緒論1
1.1研究背景與動機1
1.2研究目的2
1.3研究範圍與內容3
1.4研究方法與流程5
第二章 文獻回顧7
2.1事故與交通衝突7
2.2微觀車流理論與駕駛外顯行為模式9
2.3緊急情境下的閃避行為10
2.4駕駛心理行為模式12
2.5交通衝突與交通衝突指標14
2.6小結18
第三章 機車衝突行為系統分析19
3.1機車駕駛行為系統分析19
3.1.1道路環境中的駕駛行為系統19
3.1.2影響機車駕駛行為特性異於汽車駕駛者的因素22
3.2面臨衝突時之駕駛行為心理層面分析25
3.2.1由一般駕駛行為之駕駛心理觀察衝突行為25
3.2.2機車衝突行為之二階段觀點26
3.3簡單衝突情境之界定27
3.3.1簡單衝突情境之基本假設27
3.3.2界定衝突行為的開始與結束30
3.4預定簡化觀察的刺激條件31
第四章 外顯動作層面分析33
4.1減速動作使用動機與動作量33
4.1.1可容忍的剩餘時間資源TTCa分析34
4.1.2減速比分析36
4.2偏移動作使用動機與動作量37
4.3衝突行為類型分析38
4.3.1自動反應動作之動作內容41
4.3.2謹慎決策行為之影響因素與動作量41
4.4衝突刺激量與動作反應量之量測定義42
4.4.1「剩餘時間資源TTC」之量測定義42
4.4.2「所需偏移之最小寬度W」之量測定義43
4.4.3減速率DR、偏向位移率LSD之定義43
4.4.4「駕駛者的危險感受E」之量測方法46
4.5小結46
第五章 實證機車衝突行為之實驗設計48
5.1實證需要考慮的因素48
5.2實驗設計49
5.2.1目的49
5.2.2受試人員49
5.2.2地點49
5.2.3實驗流程50
5.3資料轉換51
5.3.1影帶資料轉換為電子資料之流程51
5.3.2軌跡點圖程式之功能說明53
5.4實驗後記54
第六章 機車衝突行為模式實證分析56
6.1以二階段觀察機車駕駛行為56
6.2實驗資料概述58
6.2.1樣本資料摘要58
6.2.2感受反應時間與判斷思考時間59
6.2.3「感受到危險E」與衝突刺激61
6.3減速動作61
6.3.1減速比分析62
6.3.2可容忍之剩餘時間資源TTCa分析63
6.4偏向位移動作65
6.4.1第一階段65
6.4.2第二階段66
6.5小結67
第七章 結論與建議69
7.1結論69
7.2建議70
參考文獻73

1. 王文麟，「交通工程：理論與實用(第三版)」，民國八十二年九月。
2. 交通部統計處編印，「台灣地區自用小汽車使用狀況調查報告」，民國八十五年八月。
3. 交通部統計處編印，「台灣地區機車使用狀況調查報告」，民國八十七年六月。
4. 交通部運輸研究所，「150cc以上機車於國內開放產銷之衝擊研究」，民國八十七年。
5. 交通部編印，「交通統計要覽」，民國八十七年八月。
6. 李樑堅，「建立微觀車流模擬模式以發展交通適應性號誌控制邏輯之研究」，成功大學交通管理科學研究所博士論文，民國八十二年五月。
7. 林佐鼎，「機車事故與撞擊型態之關連分析」，第二屆機車交通與安全研討會，民國八十七年十月。
8. 林鄉鎮，「高速公路小汽車駕駛者跟車行為之研究─以虛擬實境(VR)技術所建構之駕駛模擬系統為工具」，國立成功大學交通管理科學研究所博士論文，民國八十六年七月。
9. 洪軍爝，「駕駛行為研究方法及實例研究」，台灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文，民國七十五年六月。
10. 張春興，「現代心理學」，東華書局，民國八十二年。
11. 張堂賢，「中華民國泛機車交通問題之回顧與前瞻」，民國八十二年。
12. 張新立，「台灣地區青少年運輸需求特性及交通安全風險感認之調查研究」，東陽吳篙文教基金會，民國八十五年三月。
13. 張新立，「我國機車交通事故特性分析與行車安全問題之探討」，台灣山葉機車工業股份有限公司，民國八十二年六月。
14. 張應當，「非號誌化交叉路口交通衝突之模擬研究」，成功大學交通管理科學研究所碩士論文，民國七十六年六月。
15. 許添本，「機車交通智慧化發展策略」，台灣區智慧型運輸系統推動策略研討會，民國八十七年十月。
16. 許添本，葉源祥，「車道標線對道路容量與車流衝突分析」，運輸(現已改版為：運輸學刊)，第25期，第57-74頁，民國八十三年九月。
17. 許添本，劉建宏，「路面坑洞對機車車流干擾與績效衝擊分析」，國立台灣大工程學刊，第六十六期，第13-24頁，民國八十五年二月。
18. 陳世泉，「混合車流中機車駕駛行為之分析」，台灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文，民國八十二年六月。
19. 陳高村，「機車事故碰撞行為分析與探討」，第二屆機車交通與安全研討會，民國八十七年十月。
20. 黃國平，「混合車流二維座標模擬模式之建議與驗證」，台灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文，民國七十二年。
21. 潘盟煌，「交通違規行為習慣性之衡量與影響因素之研究」，交通大學交通運輸研究所碩士論文，民國八十七年六月。
22. 鍾隆文，龍天立，「行人偵測與行人模擬模式之研究」，運輸學刊，第九卷第四期，頁1~頁26，民國八十五年十二月。
23. 鍾聖校，「認知心理學」，心理出版社有限公司，民國八十六年七月。
24. Admussen, F. H., and Hyden, C. ,Eds , “Proceeding of first workshop on traffic conflicts”, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo/Lund Institute of Technology, Oslo, Norway, 1977.
25. Allen, B. L., Shin, B. T., Cooper, P. J., “Analysis of traffic conflicts and collisions”, Transportation Research Board, TRR 667, pp. 67-74, 1978.
26. Anderson, J. R., “Cognitive psychology and its implications”, 3rd, pp.56-58, 1990.
27. Brehmer B., “Psychological aspects of traffic safety”, European Journal of Operational Research 75, pp. 540-552, 1994.
28. Chang, H. L., “A disaggregate survival model of motor carrier highway accident occurrence”, Ph.D. Dissertation , Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, U.S.A., August,1986.
29. Chin , H. C., and Quek , S. T., “Measurement of traffic conflicts”, Safety Science Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 169-185, 1997.
30. Chin , H. C., and Quek , S. T., “Quantitative examination of traffic conflicts”, TRR 1376, pp. 86-91, 1992.
31. Chin, H. C., Quek, S. T. , and Cheu, R. L., “Traffic conflicts in expressway Merging”, Journal of Traffic Engineering, Vol. 117(6), pp. 633-643, 1991.
32. Cooper, D. F., Smith, W., and Broadie ,V., “Traffic studies at T-junctions: A conflict simulation model”, Traffic Engineering & Control 17(7), pp. 306-309, July 1976.
33. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I., “Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research”, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
34. Fuller, R., “A conceptualization of driving behaviour as threat avoidance”, Ergonomics, Vol. 27, No. 11, pp. 1139-1155, 1984.
35. Fuller, R., “Predicting what a driver will do: implications of the Threat-Avoidance Model of driver behaviour”, In: Rothengatter, J. A. and de Bruin, R. A. eds., “Road user behaviour: Theory and Reasearch”, VAN GORCUM, pp.93-105, 1988.
36. Gibson, J. J., Crooks, L. E., “A theoretial field-analysis of automobile driving”, Am. J. of Psychol. LI: 453-471, 1938.
37. Glauz , W. D., and Migletz , D. J.,”Application of traffic conflicts analysis at intersections”, Transportation Research Board , Report No. NCHRP 219, pp. 29-33.,August 1980.
38. Godthelp, H., Milgram, P., and Blaauw, G. J., “The development of a time-related measure to describe driving strategy”, Human Factors, Vol. 26, pp. 257-268, 1984.
39. Hankey, J. M., McGehee, D. V., Dingus, T. A., “Initial driver avoidance behavior and reaction time to an unalerted intersection incursion”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40h Annual Meeting, pp.896-899, 1996.
40. Hayward , C., “Near-miss determination through use of a scale of danger”, Highway Research Board, Report No. HRR 384, pp. 24-34, 1972.
41. Heino, A, Hugo H. van der Molen, Wilde, G. J. S., “Risk perception, Risk taking, Accident involvement and the need for stimulation”, Safety Science, Vol. 22, No. 1-3, pp.35-48, 1996.
42. Liebermann, D. G., Ben-David, G., Schweitzer, N., Apter, Y., Parush, A. ,”A field study on breaking responses during driving. I. Triggering and modulation”, Ergonomics, Vol. 38, No. 9, pp1894-1902, 1995.
43. Limpert, R., and Gamero, F. E., “The accident avoidance potential of the motor vehicle: accident data, vehicle handling and safety standards”, Third International Congress on Automatic Safety, 15-17, July 1974, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.
44. Limpert, R., “Motor vehicle accident reconstruction and cause analysis”, The Michine Company, Charlottesulle, Virginia,1994.
45. Malaterre, G. , Ferrandez, F. , Fleury, D.,and Lechner, D. , “Decision making in emergency situations”, Ergonomics, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 643-655, 1988.
46. Mannering, F. L., Grodsky, L. L., “Statistical analysis of motorcyclists perceived accident risk”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.21-31, 1995.
47. Matson, Smith and Hurd, “Traffic Engineering”, McGraw Hill: Civil Engineering Series, New York, 1955.
48. May, A. D., “Traffic Flow Fundamentals”, Prentics Hall, pp. 162-177,1990.
49. McSHANE, W. R., Roess, R. R., “Traffic Engineering”, Prentice Hall, pp.28, 1990.
50. Naatanen, R., Summala, H., “Road-User behavior and traffic accidents”, North-Holland/American Elsevier, Amsterdam and New York. 1976
51. Older , S. J., and Spicer , B. R., “Traffic Conflicts-A development in accident research”, Human Factors 18(4) , pp. 335-350, 1976.
52. Ranney, T. A. , “Models of driving behavior: A review of their evolution”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 733-750, 1994.
53. Rassmussen, J., “The definition of human error and a taxonomy for technical system design”, In: Rasmussen, J., Duncan, K., Leplat, J., eds., “New technology and human error”, Chichester, U.K., Wiley, 1986.
54. Rizzo , M., McGehee , D., Petersen , A.D., and Dingus , T.A., “Modelling changes in driving behaviour: On the effects of autonomous intelligent cruise control”, PERGAMON, Traffic and Transport Psychology, pp. 203-208, 1997.
55. Sayed , T., Brown , G., and Navin , F., “Simulation of traffic conflicts at unsignalized intersections with TSC-Sim”, Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 593-607, 1994.
56. Shinar , D., “Psychology on the road: the human factor in traffic safety”, John Wiley & Sons Inc. , 1978, pp. 2-4.
57. Spicer , B. R., “A pilot study of traffic conflicts at a rural dual carriage way intersection”, Road Research Laboratory Report LR 410, 1970.
58. Summala , H., “Accident risk and driver behaviour”, Safety Science, Vol. 22, No. 1-3, pp.103-177, 1996.
59. Summala , H., “Risk control not risk adjustment: The Zero-Risk Theory of driver behaviour and it’s Implications”, Ergonomics, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 491-506, 1988a.
60. Summala, H., and Naatanen, R., “The Zero-Risk Theory and overtaking decisions”, In: Rothengatter, J. A. and de Bruin, R. A. eds. , “Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research”, VAN GORCUM, pp. 82-92, 1988b.
61. Treisman , A. M., and Gelade, G., “A feature-intergration theory of attention”, Cognitive Psychology , Vol. 12., pp. 97-136, 1980.
62. Tsutsui, S., and Yonekawa, T., “Driver’s characteristics of avoidance maneuver”, JSAE Review, Vol. 17, Issue: 1, pp.93, January 1996.
63. Widle, G. J. S., “The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health”, Risk Analysis, No. 2, pp. 209-225, 1982a.
64. Wiedemann, R., “Simulation des Strassenverkehrsflusses”, Schriftenreihe des Instituts furverkehrswesen, Heft 8, Universitat Karlsruhe, 1974.
65. Yates, J. F., “Risk-Taking Behavior”, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 213-214, 1992.
66. Zimmer, A. C., “Time & Mind”, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, pp. 45-61, 1996.