4.3 Article

Why the government should be blamed for road safety

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2020.1835234

关键词

major road traffic accidents; systems-based approach; structural equation model; government regulation; human factors analysis and classification system

资金

  1. National Social Science Foundation of China [19BGL233]
  2. National Social Science Fund of China [71971008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study quantitatively examines the effects of government regulation on human and organizational factors in the context of road traffic accidents. The analysis of 405 major accidents in China over a 20-year period reveals that inadequate regulation is the most frequent contributing factor, and government regulation significantly influences organizational influences, unsafe supervision, and unsafe behaviors. These findings offer valuable insights for accident prevention and suggest new directions for government policy-making and regulatory activities.
The government plays an important role in road safety. However, the effectiveness of the government in the context of road traffic accidents (RTAs) is rarely measured quantitatively. This study aims to quantitatively examine the effects of government regulation on human and organizational factors. A contributing factors classification framework of RTAs is presented based on the human factors analysis and classification system, one of the most popular systems approaches. A total of 405 major RTAs was collected over a 20-year period (1997-2017) in China and analyzed through the structural equation model. The results lead to two main conclusions: the frequency of inadequate regulation, which has reached 343, is the highest frequency among all contributing factors; government regulation exhibits significant effects on organizational influences, unsafe supervision and unsafe behaviors. These findings provide a new perspective for accident prevention that can be initiated by the government in policy-making and regulatory activities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据