4.7 Article

Metro passenger behaviors and their relations to metro incident involvement

期刊

ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION
卷 82, 期 -, 页码 90-100

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.05.015

关键词

Rail transit safety; Passenger behaviors; Incidents; Violations; Errors

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51178116]
  2. Postgraduates' Science and Innovation Foundation of Jiangsu Province [CXZZ12_0126]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The frequent incidents caused by metro passengers in China suggest that it is necessary to explore the classification and effects of passenger behaviors and their relations to incident involvement. A metro passenger behavior questionnaire (MPBQ) and a metro station staff questionnaire (MSSQ), both comprising 32 behavior items, were developed and surveyed on a sample of metro passengers (N=579) and metro staff (N=99). Using the MPBQ the self-reported frequency of each aberrant behavior was measured and subjected to explanatory factor analysis, which revealed a three-factor solution on the 28 retained behavior items: transgressions, self-willed inattentions and abrupt violations. ANOVA was used to examine the effects of demographic and riding profile variables on different types of behaviors. The MSSQ was used to collect metro staff opinions on behavior frequency, severity and entities that might be affected, given that a specific behavior occurred. An importance hierarchy was established over the 32 identified behaviors to determine the most important riding behaviors. Finally, logistic regression showed that riding time, number of stops experienced by a passenger and, more importantly, transgressions and abrupt violations, were significant predictors of incident involvement. The possible explanations and implications of the findings might help in understanding passenger behaviors and targeting metro safety interventions in ways that promote safer operations. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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