跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.210.149.205) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/04/12 22:23
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:曾建民
研究生(外文):Chien-Ming Tseng
論文名稱:終身吊銷駕駛執照制度之實施成效評估—被吊照人吊照前後開車實證分析
論文名稱(外文):THE EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LIFETIME DRIVER LICENSE REVOCATION—AN EMPIRICAL DRIVING INCIDENCE ANALYSIS
指導教授:張新立張新立引用關係吳宗修吳宗修引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hsin-Li ChangT. Hugh Woo
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立交通大學
系所名稱:運輸科技與管理學系
學門:運輸服務學門
學類:運輸管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2006
畢業學年度:94
語文別:英文
論文頁數:82
中文關鍵詞:終生吊照駕駛行為肇事逃逸羅吉特模式一般化估計方程式
外文關鍵詞:ALLRdriver licensehit-and-runlogistic modelGEE
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:402
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:74
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
交通事故之發生固然造成受害者生命、身體及財產上的實害,對於肇事致人死亡或受傷而逃逸,或酒精過量致人死亡或重傷者,在被處以終身吊銷駕駛執照之情況下,其法益的削減包括刑事罰、民事罰以及行政罰 (終身吊照)等亦不可謂不重。民國90年10月大法官會議曾針對肇事逃逸被終身吊銷駕駛執照之案例做出解釋,明確指出本項處分與憲法並無牴觸,惟終身吊照是否影響人民之基本權?或確實使肇事者遠離道路不再開車?則有近一步探究之必要。本研究為探討終身吊照之效果及其對被吊照人之衝擊,針對終身吊照者進行二階段之調查,有效樣本計768位,結果顯示其中23.4% 之受訪者,吊照後與吊照前之開車情況幾乎完全相同,59.8% 之受訪者明顯降低開車頻率,完全不再開車者僅16.8%。整體而言,被終身吊照者平均降低了65.7% 之開車里程。就與吊照前幾乎完全相同開車之受訪者而言,其開車之目的主要在於工作、通勤、拜訪親友及接送小孩;就明顯降低開車頻率之受者而言,其開車主要為了工作及接送小孩。羅吉特迴歸結果顯示,是否遵守終身吊照處罰而不開車之程度,主要與個人屬性 (年齡、所得)、處罰情況 (入監、吊照長度) 以及開車需要(工作、通勤、購物)有關;年長者及低所得者較遵守終身吊照不再開車之規定;被判入監者較多維持與吊照前幾乎完全相同之開車頻率。Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs) 模式結果亦顯示,個人屬性 (年齡、所得、駕照種類)、處罰情況 (入監、高額民事賠償)以及開車需要 (工作、通勤、休閒旅遊及接送小孩)、開車頻率、吊照、吊照x駕照種類,皆明顯影響整體之開車里程。綜合而言,終身吊照確實具有使肇事者遠離道路不再開車之一般效果,但也可能產生不公平的處分結果,使弱勢者更形弱勢。
Car accidents bring many damages including death, injury and property loss to the victims. On the other side, in the case of hitting-and-running and causing death/or injury or drunk-driving and causing death/or serious injury, there are many kinds of penalties for offenders including criminal punishment, civil compensation and administrative lifetime driver license revocation (ALLR). In October 2001, the Taiwan constitutional court pointed out that ALLR does not violate the Constitution. Considering driving is a necessity of living, it should be further considered whether ALLR has impacted human basic rights, such as the rights of moving freedom, the right to work and the right of existence, and kicked those illegal drivers out of the road.
This study investigated the effectiveness of ALLR and its impact on offenders, based on a two-stage survey of 768 offenders. It was found that after ALLR had been imposed, 23.4% of these offenders were still driving almost the same as before, 59.8% drove significantly less frequently, and only 16.8% of the offenders gave up driving completely. Overall, 65.7% of the offenders’ annual mileage driven was reduced by ALLR punishment. For those offenders who drove at almost the same driving frequency, working, commuting, visiting relatives/or friends, and driving kids were the main activities compelling them to continue driving. However, for those offenders whose driving was significantly reduced, the necessity of traveling to work and driving kids were their main reasons for continuing to drive.
Results of logistic regression models showed that offenders’ compliance with ALLR was significantly correlated with their personal characteristics (age, income), penalty status (incarceration, duration of ALLR), and the need to drive for working, commuting and shopping. Elderly and low-income offenders were more likely to abide by the ALLR restriction. Offenders who had been incarcerated were more likely to drive the same as before ALLR when compared to those offenders who had not been incarcerated. The study results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs) model also showed that personal characteristics (age, income, license category), penalty status (incarceration, high civil compensation), driving needs (work, commuting, traveling and driving kids), indicator of group membership, indicator of post-ALLR, and the interaction of license category together with post-ALLR were all significantly associated with the mileage driven. It was found that ALLR is fairly effective in keeping offenders off the road, but it can reduce their ability to make a living, resulting in the less fortunate becoming more helpless.
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………1
1.1 Research background and motivations……………………1
1.2 Research objectives…………………………………………5
1.3 Research approach……………………………………………6
1.4 Overview of thesis…………………………………………10
Chapter 2 Literature review…………………………………11
2.1 The principles of constitution…………………………11
2.1.1 The meaning of human’s basic rights………………11
2.1.1.1 The right of freedom…………………………………11
2.1.1.2 The right to work………………………………………12
2.1.1.3 The right of existence………………………………13
2.1.2 The restrictive principles and types of basic rights………………………………………………………………14
2.1.2.1 Restrictive principles………………………………14
2.1.2.2 The types of restriction……………………………17
2.1.3 The limitation of basic rights for ALLR offenders…18
2.1.3.1 The restriction on moving freedom………………18
2.1.3.2 The restriction on the right to work…………20
2.1.3.3 The restriction on the right of existence……21
2.1.4 The constitutional interpretations 284, 531………21
2.2 Literature of license suspension/revocation…………22
2.3 Literature of methodology…………………………………23
2.3.1 Logistic regression model………………………………23
2.3.2 Generalized estimating equations (GEEs)……………27
2.3.2.1 The form of GEEs………………………………………27
2.3.2.2 Specification of working correlation matrix……30
2.3.2.3 Empirical and model based variance estimators…30
2.3.2.4 Missing data issues……………………………………31
Chapter 3 The ALLR policy………………………………………32
3.1 The development of the law………………………………32
3.2 Current results of implementing…………………………34
Chapter 4 The trend of constitutional interpretation on ALLR…………………………………………………………………36
4.1 The relationship of ALLR and the privilege against self-incrimination………………………………………………………36
4.2 The relationship of ALLR and the principle of equality……………………………………………………………38
4.3 ALLR and the principle of propriety……………………38
4.4 ALLR and the principle of necessity……………………39
4.5 ALLR and the principle of proportion…………………40
Chapter 5 Empirical study………………………………………41
5.1 Materials and methods………………………………………41
5.1.1 Data source…………………………………………………41
5.1.2 Data collection……………………………………………41
5.1.3 Measures and variables…………………………………43
5.1.3.1 The measurement of the compliance of ALLR as a whole………………………………………………………………43
5.1.3.2 The measurement of the compliance of ALLR for different driving groups……………………………………44
5.1.3.3 The measurement of the driving mileage for ALLR for offenders both before and after ALLR………………………47
5.2 Study results…………………………………………………49
5.2.1 Basic results……………………………………………49
5.2.1.1 Offenders’characteristics…………………………50
5.2.1.2. Penalty status…………………………………………50
5.2.1.3. Reasons for driving under ALLR……………………51
5.2.2 Driving incidence under ALLR…………………………51
5.2.2.1 Driving exposure under ALLR…………………………51
5.2.2.2 Changes in driving behavior…………………………55
5.2.3 Logistic regression analysis for different driving frequency groups…………………………………………………56
5.2.3.1. The findings from Model 1 – those who ignored ALLR
punishment…………………………………………………56
5.2.3.2 The findings from Model 2 – those who absolutely complied with ALLR…………………………………………………57
5.2.4 GEE model analysis for mileage driven for still driving offenders…………………………………………………59
Chapter 6 Discussions………………………………………………62
6.1 Discussion 1 -- A discussion of concept…………………62
6.2 Discussion 2 -- A discussion of empirical driving incidence………………………………………………………………63
Chapter 7 Conclusions……………………………………………67
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………70
Appendix: Questionnaires………………………………………………………75
Vita……………………………………………………………………81
中華民國交通統計月報(民81),頁75。
王惠玲,社會基本權與憲法上工作權之保障(民81),律師通訊,第153期,頁40-48。
王兆鵬,緘默之證據能力(民88),台灣本土法學雜誌,第四期,頁50-62。
司法院公報(民85),釋字第404號。
司法院公報(民85),釋字第411號。
朱石炎(民83),論刑事被告緘默權,法令月刊,第45卷,第2期。
李俊賢(民89),論我國憲法上自由權之發展變遷—從大法官解釋析之,憲政時代,第25卷,第3期,頁55-75。
李惠宗(民86),德國基本法所保障之職業自由—德國聯邦憲法法院有關職業自由保障判決之研究,司法院編,德國聯邦憲法法院裁判選輯(七)—職業選擇自由與工作權,頁23。
李惠宗(民90),憲法要義,元照出版社。
李惠宗(民90),論比例原則作為刑事立法的界限,台灣本土法學雜誌,第18期。
李震山(民89)「先行政後司法」之行政制裁,月旦法學雜誌,第60期,頁26。
林山田(民84),刑法通論,神州出版社。
林山田(民88),評1999年的刑法修正,月旦法學雜誌,第51期,頁16-42。
林東茂(民89),肇事逃逸—高等法院八十九年度交上訴字第九號判決評析,臺灣本土法學雜誌,第16期,頁86-93。
林紀東(民87),中華民國憲法逐條釋義,三民書局。
林子儀(民93),司法院大法官議決釋字第583號解釋,大法官林子儀不同意見書。
莊美英(民80),生存權之發展及其法特質,育達學報,第5期,頁212-220。
許玉秀(民89),擇一故意與所知所犯—兼論違憲的肇事逃逸罪,臺灣本土法學雜誌,第13期,頁186-199。
曾平毅、黃健星(民89),對交通肇事逃逸案件之基本認知,都市交通季刊,第十五卷,第四期。
黃榮堅(民89),不能駕駛與肇事逃逸,臺灣本土法學雜誌,第7期,頁147-153。
黃越欽(民89),憲法中工作權之意義暨其演進,法令月刊,51卷第10期,頁34-55。
蔡茂寅(民88),社會權—生存權與勞動基本權,月旦法學雜誌,第49期。
謝輝鵬(民86),從行政法制觀點論比例原則,警光雜誌,第495期,頁69-70。
蕭淑芬(民87),從日本行政程序法之制定談法治國家原理之發展與人權保障--兼論生存權之程序保障的可能性(上),東海大學法學研究,第13期,頁101-121。
Ali S. Al-Ghamdi, 2002, Using logistic regression to estimate the influence of accident factors on accident severity. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 729–741.
Diggle, P. J., Liang, K. Y., and Zeger, S. L. (1994), Analysis of Longitudinal Data, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Haeberle, P. (1984), Vielfalt der Property Rights under verfassungsrechtliche Eigentumsbegriff, in AoeR, 1984.
Hilbe, J. M. (1994), Generalized Linear Models, The American Statistician, 48, pp. 255–265.
ILS, (1997), BC’s Indefinite License Suspension program, http://north-van.rcmp- grc.gc.ca /ils_text.htm
James, J.L., Kim, K.E., 1996. Restraint use by children involved in crashes in Hawaii, 1986–1991. In: Transportation Research Record 1560, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 8–11.
Jones, A.P., Bentham, G., 1995. Emergency medical service accessibility and outcome from road traffic accidents. Public Health, 109, pp. 169–177.
Kathleen, Y. K. and Ross, H. L. (1997), Effects of Administrative License Revocation on Employment, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, No 5, pp. 595-611.
Kim, K., Lawrence, N., Richardson, J., Li, L., 1994. Analyzing the relationship between crash types and injury severity in motor vehicle collisions in Hawaii. In: Transportation Research Record 1467, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp.9–13.
Kim, K., Nitz, L., Richardson, J., Li, L., 1995. Personal and behavioral predictors of automobile crash and injury severity. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 4, 469–481.
Kim, K., Lawrence, N., Richardson, J., Li, L., 1995. Personal and behavioral predictors of automobile crash and injury severity. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 27 (4), pp.469–481.
Kim, K., Lawrence, N., Richardson, J., Li, L., 1996. Modeling fault among bicyclists and drivers involved in collisions in Hawaii 1986–1991. In: Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 75–80.
McCormick, J. P. (1996), Introduction to Carl Schmitt’s. The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations, Telos, pp. 119-129.
NHTSA, (1996), Digest of state alcohol-highway safety related legislation. US. Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.
Schünemann, (2000),「交通刑法之憲法界限與刑事政策問題」演講,司法院大法官國際交流座談會。
Deyoung, D. J., 1999. An evaluation of the specific deterrent effects of vehicle impoundment on suspended, revoked, and unlicensed drivers in California, Accident Analysis and Prevention 31, 45–53.
Hagen, R.E., McConnell, E.J., Williams, R.L., 1980. Suspension and revocation effects on the DUI offender. California Department of Motor Vehicles, Sacramento, CA.
Hagen, R., 1977. Effectiveness of license suspension for drivers convicted of multiple driving-under-the-influence offences. Report No.59. Department of Motor Vehicles, Sacramento, CA.
Henderson, A., Kedjidjian, C., 1992. Administrative license revocation—are we driving drunks off the road? Traffic Safety, 6-8.
Hilakivi, I., et al., 1989. A sixteen-factor personality test for predicting automobile driving accidents of young drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 21 (5), 413–418.
Homel, R., 1981. Penalties and the drink-driver: a study of one thousand offenders. NZ J. Criminal 14, 225-241.
Huber, P. J. (1967), The Behavior of Maximum Likelihood Estimates Under Non-standard Conditions, in Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, vol. 1, pp. 221–233.
Ingraham, W.S., Waller, J.A., 1971. Alcohol-impaired driving, license suspensions, and transportation needs during intoxication or suspension among alcoholics. Crash Report No. IV-1, Department of Mental Health, Waterbury.
Knoebel, K.Y., Ross, H. L., 1997. Effects of Administrative License Revocation on Employment, Accident Analysis and Prevention 29(5), 595-611.
Liang, K. Y., and Zeger, S. L. (1986), Longitudinal Data Analysis Using Generalized Linear Models, Biometrika, 73, 13–22.
Lund, A.K., 1993. Effectiveness of administrative license revocation (ALR) laws. Transportation Research Board Circular, No. 413 Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Malenfant, J. E. L., Van Houten, R. V., Jonah, B., 2002. A study to measure the incidence of driving under suspension in the Greater Moncton area. Accident Analysis and prevention 34, 439-447.
Mann, R.E., Vingilis, E.R., Gavin, D., Adlaf, E., Anglin, L., 1991. Sentence severity and the drinking driver: relationship with traffic safety outcome. Accident Analysis and Prevention 23, 483-491.
McCullagh, P., and Nelder, J. A. (1989), Generalized Linear Models, New York: hapman and Hall.
McKnight, J. A., Voas, R.B., 1991. The effect of license suspension upon DUI recidivism. Alcohol Drugs and Driving 7, 43-54.
Menard, S., 1995. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Vol. 106, Sage, New York.
Mercier, C.R., Shelley, M.C., Rimkus, J., Mercier, J.M., 1997. Age and gender as predictors of injury severity in head-on highway vehicular collisions. In: Transportation Research Record 1581, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Milton, J., Mannering, F., 1997. Relationship among highway geometric, traffic-related elements, and motor-vehicle accident frequencies. Presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Nassar, S.A., Saccomanno, F.F., Shortreed, J.H., 1997. Integrated Risk Model (ARM) of Ontario. Presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Wiley, New York.
NHTSA, 1993. Police time and costs associated with administrative license revocation. Report No. HS-808064, U.S. Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC.
Peck, R.C., 1991. The general and specific deterrent effects of DUI sanctions: a review of California’s experience. Alcohol Drugs and Driving 7, 13-31.
Popkin, C., Li, L., Lacey, J., Stewart, R., Waller, P., 1983. An initial evaluation of the North Carolina alcohol and drug education traffic school: Volume 1. Technical Report. Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Prentice, R. L. (1988), Correlated Binary Regression With Covariates Specific to Each Binary Observation, Biometrics, 44, 1033–1048.
Ross, H.L., Gonzales, P., 1988. Effects of license revocation on drunk-driving offenders. Accident Analysis and Prevention 20, 379-291.
Ross, H.L., 1991. License deprivation as a drunk-driver sanction. Alcohol Drugs and Driving 7, 63-69.
Sadler, D., Perrine, M., 1984. The long-term traffic safety impact of a pilot alcohol abuse treatment as an alternative to license suspension. Vol.2: An evaluation of the California drunk driving countermeasure system. Technical Report CAL-DMV-RSS-84-90. California Department of Motor Vehicles, Sacramento, CA.
Salzberg, R., Hauser, R., Klingberg, C., 1981. License revocation and alcohol treatment programs for habitual traffic offenders. Report No.40, Department of Licensing, Olympia, WA.
Schlesselman, J. J., 1982. Case-Control Studies, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 246-248.
Shankar, V., Mannering, F., Barfield, W., 1996. Statistical analysis of accident frequency of rural freeways. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 28 (3), 391–401.
Siskind, V., 1996. Does License Disqualification Reduce Reoffence Rates? Accident Analysis and Prevention 28(4), 519-534.
Smith, D.I., Maisey, G., 1990. Survey of driving by disqualified and suspended drivers in Western Australia. Western Australia Department of Transport, Perth, W.A.: Road Safety Trends, 3-4.
Sungyop Kima, Karl Kimb, (2003), Personal, temporal and spatial characteristics of seriously injured crash-involved seat belt non-users in Hawaii, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 121–130
Sweedler, B.M., Stewart, K., 1993. Reducing drinking and driving through administrative license revocation. Proceeding of the 12th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Cologne.
Tashima, H., Peck, R.C., 1986. An evaluation of the specific deterrent effects of alternative sanctions for first and repeat DUI offenders. Vol.3: An evaluation of the California drunk driving countermeasure system. Technical Report CAL-DMV-RSS-86-95. California Department of Motor vehicles, Sacramento, CA.
Voas, R. B., DeYoung, D. J., 2002. Vehicle action: effective policy for controlling drunk and other high-risk drivers? Accident Analysis and Prevention 34, 263–270.
White, H. (1980), A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity, Econometrica, 48, 817–838.
White, H. (1982), Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified Models, Econometrica, 50, 1–25
Williams, A., Weinberg K., Fields, M., 1991. The effectiveness of administrative license suspension laws. Alcohol Drugs and Driving 7, 55-62.
Williams, R. L., Hagen, R. E., McConnell, E. J., 1984. A survey of suspension and revocation effects on the drink-driving offender. Accident Analysis and prevention 16(5/6), 339-350.
Williamson, D.S., Bangdiwala, S.I., Marshall, S.W., Waller, A.E., 1996. Repeated measures analysis of binary outcomes: applications to injury research. Accident Analysis and Prevention 28, 571–579.
Zador, P., Lund, A., Fields, M., Weinberg, K., 1989. Fatal crash involvement and laws against alcohol-impaired driving. Journal of Public Health Policy, 10, 467–485.
Zeger, S. L., and Liang, K. Y. (1986), Longitudinal Data Analysis for Discrete and Continuous Outcomes, Biometrics, 42, 121–130.
Zeger, S.L., Liang, K.Y., 1992. An overview of methods for the analysis of longitudinal data. Statistics in Medicine, 11, 1825–1839.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關論文
 
1. 莊美英(民80),生存權之發展及其法特質,育達學報,第5期,頁212-220。
2. 林東茂(民89),肇事逃逸—高等法院八十九年度交上訴字第九號判決評析,臺灣本土法學雜誌,第16期,頁86-93。
3. 許玉秀(民89),擇一故意與所知所犯—兼論違憲的肇事逃逸罪,臺灣本土法學雜誌,第13期,頁186-199。
4. 蕭淑芬(民87),從日本行政程序法之制定談法治國家原理之發展與人權保障--兼論生存權之程序保障的可能性(上),東海大學法學研究,第13期,頁101-121。
5. 謝輝鵬(民86),從行政法制觀點論比例原則,警光雜誌,第495期,頁69-70。
6. 蔡茂寅(民88),社會權—生存權與勞動基本權,月旦法學雜誌,第49期。
7. 黃越欽(民89),憲法中工作權之意義暨其演進,法令月刊,51卷第10期,頁34-55。
8. 黃榮堅(民89),不能駕駛與肇事逃逸,臺灣本土法學雜誌,第7期,頁147-153。
9. 曾平毅、黃健星(民89),對交通肇事逃逸案件之基本認知,都市交通季刊,第十五卷,第四期。
10. 李震山(民89)「先行政後司法」之行政制裁,月旦法學雜誌,第60期,頁26。
11. 李俊賢(民89),論我國憲法上自由權之發展變遷—從大法官解釋析之,憲政時代,第25卷,第3期,頁55-75。
12. 朱石炎(民83),論刑事被告緘默權,法令月刊,第45卷,第2期。
13. 王惠玲,社會基本權與憲法上工作權之保障(民81),律師通訊,第153期,頁40-48。