臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

國內各肇事原因車種中大多以機車佔比最高，探討機車肇事成因，預防、遏阻騎士做出可能導致事故發生之行為為目前台灣交通環境之重要課題。但國內研究針對風險行為多為探討特定風險行為，或僅挑選幾項行為做為問卷調查之代表行為問項，鮮少針對各風險行為之間之差異臚列做比較。

本研究一開始為了可以與其他國家比較，首先參考Wedagama學者對印尼機車騎士的風險行為調查研究，翻譯同一份測驗量表對台灣人做相同的調查，比較台灣與印尼機車騎士特性之不同。調查結果同中有異，大部分的風險行為均有相似之處，但尚不具備可信程度。且以Wedagama學者調查印尼機車騎士之風險行為對台灣人進行相同之調查僅能比較台印異同，較難發現台灣機車騎士之風險行為特性，難以針對問題改善。因此另參考國內研究及違規統計挑選出「頻繁變換車道」、「急加速又急煞車」、「超速」、「進入彎道未減速」、「疲勞駕駛」、「酒(後)騎車」、「騎車時分心」、「闖紅燈」、「與其他車輛競速」、「未依規定讓車」、「未保持安全距離」、「未依規定兩段式左轉」、「逆向行駛」、「行駛禁行機車道」、「未禮讓公車」及「誤/未打方向燈」等16項常見之風險騎乘行為，重新對國人進行調查，期能找出具有台灣機車騎乘特性之風險行為量表，並驗證模式假說。

在針對國內的特性所進行的調查結果顯示，測量模式部分，風險感知依風險行為特性可分為「騎乘特性」及「騎乘干擾」2因素，其中「超速」及「頻繁變換車道」行為對騎乘特性因素有較大之貢獻(因素負荷量)；「未依規定讓車」及「未保持安全距離」行為對騎乘干擾因素有主要貢獻；具有較高正向態度之行為為「未保持安全距離」、「誤/未打方向燈」及「逆向行駛」；於3因素均顯著之3種行為為「與其他車輛競速」、「逆向行駛」及「未禮讓公車」，此3類風險行為均具有騎乘干擾因素之特性，即騎士對風險行為之風險感知程度越高，越有可能從事該項行為。路徑結構分析部分，風險感知所含「騎乘特性」及「騎乘干擾」2因素分別負向及正向影響風險行為的產生，正向態度正向影響並且主導風險行為的產生。

Since the accident rate of motorcycle is high in each accident cause category, to discuss the cause, and then to prevent motorcyclists from those risky behavior that may cause accidents becomes very important. However, in the past most of the studies in Taiwan discussed specific only few of risky behaviors, and seldom compared the differences among risky behaviors.
Therefore in this study, firstly for comparing with other countries, we referred Wedagama’s study which discussed the risky behavior of Indonesia’s motorcyclists and adopted same questionnaire to investigate the motorcyclists behavior of Taiwan. The result shows that the cause and effect in most of the risky behavior we compared is similar but still not enough to prove it is the same. However, this can only compare the difference between Indonesia and Taiwan. To find the risky behavior characteristic of Taiwan’s motorcyclists, we referred studies and violation statistics, selected 16 common risky behaviors to reinvestigate the motorcyclists’ behavior of Taiwan. Hope to fine a questionnaire which have Taiwan’s characteristic and to verified the hypothesis model.
The investigated result shows that “Speed violation” and “Zigzagging” have more contribution to riding style in risk perception, “Violate the stop and yield rules” and “Keep inadequate gap” have more contribution to riding disturbances in risk perception. “Keep inadequate gap”, “Failing to use turning lights” and “Driving in the wrong direction” have more contribution to positive affect. In structure equation modeling, Risk perception and positive affect have influence on risky behaviors. Risk perception have both positive and negative influences on risky riding behaviors. Positive affect influence more than risk perception. Besides, “Car racing in groups”, “Driving in the wrong direction” and “Failing to yield while closing buses” are all significantly in 3 measures. This means when a motorcyclist has higher risky perception of the risky behavior, he has more possibility to do the risky behavior.

目錄

口試委員會審定書 i
誌謝 ii
摘要 iii
Abstract v
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究目的 1
1.2 研究流程 2
1.3 預期成果 3
第二章 文獻回顧 4
2.1 風險行為 4
2.2 風險感知 6
2.3 正向態度 8
2.4 結構方程式 9
2.5 過去有關機車行為之研究 16
2.6 機車相關交通安全法規檢討 20
2.7 小結 22
第三章 研究方法 24
3.1 前測問卷結果 24
3.2 機車騎乘行為態樣 27
3.3 研究假設 29
3.4 問卷設計 30
第四章 資料收集與分析 37
4.1 問卷調查結果整理 37
4.2 Cronbach’s α係數分析 42
4.3 因素分析 46
4.4 結構方程模式路徑假設驗證 57
第五章 結論與建議 66
5.1 研究結論 66
5.2 建議 69
參考文獻 71
附錄一、前測問卷結果 78
附錄二、正式問卷 94
附錄三、正式問卷結果統計 111

1.Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2.Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
3.Assum, R.H. (1997), Attitudes and road accident risk, Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol.29(2), pp.153-159.
4.Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
5.Beck, K.H. (1981), Driving while under the influence of alcohol: relationship to attitudes and beliefs in a college population, American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 8, pp.377-388.
6.Ben-Ari, O. T., Mikulincer, M., & Gillath, O. (2003), The multidimensional driving style inventory-scale construct and validation, Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol.952, pp.1-10.
7.Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin, 88(3), 588.
8.Berdie, D. R. (1994). Reassessingthe Value of High Response Rates to Mail Surveys. Marketing Research, 1, 52-64.
9.Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17(3), 303-316.
10.Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models (Vol. 154). Sage.
11.Brain A. Jonah (1986), Accident Risk and Risk-Taking Behavior Among Young Drivers, Accid. Anal. And Prev vol.118, No7, pp.255-271.
12.Brown, I.D., Groeger, J.A. (1988), Risk perception and decision taking during the transition between novice and experienced driver status, Ergonomics, vol.31, pp.585-597.
13.Burton et al. (1978), Knowing better and losing even more : the use of knowledge in hazards management, Environmental Hazards, vol.3, pp-81-92.
14.Christie, N. (1990), The effectiveness of the 1988 police national motorway safety campaign, In Proceedings of the conference on Road Safety and Traffic Environment in Europe, VTI Konferens, Sweden.
15.Churchill Jr, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of marketing research, 64-73.
16.David Okrent (1998), Risk perception and risk management: on knowledge, resource allocation and equity, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol.59, pp.17-25.
17.Emilio Moyano Diza (2002), Theory of Planned behavior and pedestrian''s intention to violate traffic regulations, Transportation Research Part F5, pp169-175.
18.Evans, L. and Herman, R. (1976), Note on driver adaptation to modified vehicle starting acceleration, Human Factors, vol.18, pp.235-240.
19.Fishbein M., Ajzen I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley Pub (Sd).
20.Fornell, C. (1982). A second generation of multivariate analysis. 2. Measurement and evaluation (Vol. 2). Praeger Publishers.
21.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 39-50.
22.Fred L. Mannering and Lawrence L. Grodsky (1995), Statistical Analysis of Motorcyclists'' Perceived Accident Risk, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vo1.27, pp.21-31.
23.Gulian, E., Matthews, G., Glendon, A. I., Davies, D. R., & Debney, L. M. (1989), Dimensions of driver stress, Ergonomics, vol.32, pp.585-602.
24.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis . Uppersaddle River. Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed) Upper Saddle River.
25.Icek Ajzen (1991), The Theory of Planned Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes vol.50, pp.179-211(1991).
26.Icek Ajzen (2002),Constructing a Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire, TPB Questionnaire Construction.
27.Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1978). LISREL IV: A general computer program for estimation of linear structural equation systems by maximum likelihood methods. University of Uppsala, Department of statistics [Uppsala univ., Statistiska inst.
28.James Reason, et al (1990), Errors and Violations On the Roads : A Real Distinction?, Ergonomics, Vol.33, pp.1315-1332.
29.Mardia, K. V. (1985). Mardia''s test of multinormality. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences.
30.Mesken, J., Hagenzieker, M. P., Rothengatter, T., & de Waard, D. (2007), Frequency, determinants, and consequences of different drivers'' emotions: An on-the-road study using self-reports, (observed) behaviour, and physiology, Transportation Research Part F, vol.10, pp.458-475.
31.Milton Rokeach (1968), Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.
32.Musselwhite, C. (2006). Attitudes towards vehicle driving behaviour: Categorising and contextualising risk. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(2), 324-334.
33.Neville Stanton, Ian Glendon (1996), Risk homeostasis and risk assessment, Safety Science, vol.22, pp.1-13.
34.Parker, D., Manstead, A. S., Stradling, S. G., Reason, J. T., & Baxter, J. S. (1992). Intention to commit driving violations: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 94.
35.Parker, D., Reason, J. T., Manstead, A. S. R., Stradling, S. G. (1995), Driving errors, driving violations and accident involvement, Ergonomics, vol.38, pp.1036-1048.
36.Priyantha Wedagama (2015), Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.11, pp.2015-2027.
37.Rhodes, N. and Pivik, K. (2011), Age and Gender Differences in Risky Driving: The Roles of Positive Affect and Risk Perception, Accident Analysis and prevention, 43(3), pp-923-931.
38.Rhona Flin, Kathryn Mearns, Rachael Gordon, Mark Fleming (1996), Risk perception by offshore workers on UK oil and gas platforms, Safety Science, vol.22, pp.131-145.
39.Rigdon, E. E. (1998). Structural equation modeling.
40.Rumar K., Berggrund U., Jernberg P. and Ytterbom U. (1976), Driver reaction to a technical safety measure: Studded tires, Human Factors vol.18, pp.443-454.
41.S.J. Westerman, D. Haigney (2000), Individual differences in driver stress, error and violation, Personality and Individual Differences, vol.29, pp.981-998.
42.Summala, H. (1988), Risk control not risk adjustment: The Zero-Risk Theory of driver behavior and it''s implication, Ergonomics, Vol.31(4), pp.491-506.
43.Turker Ozkan , Timo Lajunen (2005), A new addition to DBQ: Positive Driver Behaviours Scale, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol.8, pp.355-368.
44.Vlek, Ch., Stallen, P. J. (1980), Rational and personal aspects of risk, Acta Psychologica vol.45, pp.273-300.
45.Weinstein, N. (1987), Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusion from a community-wide sample, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, vol.10, pp.481-500.
46.內政部警政署，106年第18週警政統計通報，https://www.npa.gov.tw/NPAGip/wSite/ct?xItem=83511&ctNode=12594&mp=1。
47.全國法規資料庫，道路交通安全規則，http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=K0040013 。
48.全國法規資料庫，道路交通管理處罰條例，http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=K0040012 。
49.王建仁 (民91)，台灣地區機車使用者風險感認與駕駛行為關聯之研究，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系，碩士論文。
50.吳世杰 (民101年)，用路價值對機車違規意向之研究分析，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系，碩士論文。
51.吳佳玲 (民96)，駕駛者駕駛經驗、同理心對風險感認之影響研究，淡江大學運輸管理學系，碩士論文。
52.邱皓政 (2004)，社會與行為科學的量化研究與統計分析: SPSS 中文視窗版資料分析範例解析 (二版)，台北，五南。
53.蕭力文 (2008)，年輕機車族群高風險駕駛行為異質性研究，國立交通大學運輸與科技管理學系，碩士論文。
54.陳碧珍 (民85)，科技風險知覺之資訊整合實驗－以石化業為例，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所，碩士論文。
55.陳鵬升(2006)，應用計畫行為理論探討機車交叉路口違規行為之研究，逢甲大學交通工程與管理所碩士班，碩士論文。
56.陳宜瑩. (2008). 公車專用道設置前後安全影響分析. 臺灣大學土木工程學研究所學位論文, 1-96.
57.游森期，余民寧 (民95)，網路問卷與傳統問卷之比較: 多樣本均等性方法學之應用，測驗學刊，53.1: 103-127。
58.尹維龍 (民94年)，偏差駕駛行為與事故傾向關係之研究，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系，碩士論文。
59.黃于嘉(2009)，機車駕駛者違規行為之影響分析-以台北市為例，淡江大學運輸管理學系，碩士論文。
60.黃依涵 (1994)，機車騎士動態交通違規特性分析與因應對策之研究 國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系，碩士論文。
61.黃芳銘 (2002)，結構方程模式理論與應用，台北，五南。
62.黃懿慧 (民83)，科技風險與環保抗爭－台灣風險認知個案研究，五南出版社，台北。
63.葉名山、廖遠橋、詹志揚、盧鴻輝，民國94 年，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。
64.趙延祥(2004)，應用計畫行為理論探討行人違規行為之研究，逢甲大學交通工程與管理學系碩士班，碩士論文。
65.賴祈延(2007)，影響我國機車駕駛人違規闖紅燈行為決策之因子研究，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系，碩士論文。
66.鮑雨薇 (2008)，人格特質, 態度, 風險感認與大專生機車危險駕駛行為之關係，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系，碩士論文。
67.謝智仁 (民91)，道路暴力行為意向之研究，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系，碩士論文。
68.魏健宏、蔡佳龍、李啟安，民國85 年，都市交叉路口行車違規現象調查與分析-以台南市為例，都市交通季刊85，26-33。