2. Comparing safety climate factors as predictors of work- related driving behavior Safety Science 37 (2006) 375-383 Andrew R. Wills, Barry Watson, Herbert C. Biggs 報告者： 林秀芸

3. Outline Objective Literature review Method Results Conclusion

4. objective To know whether safety climate would effectively forecast work-related driving behavior to transportation agency

5. Literature review Australia: work-related car accidents –the largest cause of work fatalities –25% of work fatalities (Haworth, 2002)

6. Literature review Many studies discussed the effect of management on safety behavior and outcome, such as injuries, fatalities, and other incidents.

7. Literature review Safety outcomes: –Company incident rate –Self-reported work accidents involvement frequency –Self-reported work injury frequency and severity –Safety performance and behavior –Rate of compensation claims (Diaz&Cabrera, 1997; Varonen & Mattila, 2000; Mearns, Flin, Gordon, & Fleming, 1998;Mearns,Whitaker,&Flin, 2003)

8. Literature review Safety climate: employees’ perceptions about organizational support In this study –Safety climate: workers perceptions (psychological concept) –Safety climate is less broader and complex than safety culture

9. Literature review Safety climate factors (Flin et al., 2000; Cox &Flin, 1998; O’Toole, 2002) –Management behavior and attitude –Safety management system –Risk –Work stress –Competency –Management commitment

10. This study Safety climate Work-related driving behavior Communication Work pressure Relationships Safety rules Driver training Management commitment Traffic violations Driver error Pre-trip car maintenance Driver distraction Subjects attribute (age, sex, traveling distance)

11. Method 329 participants –3 organizations in Queensland, Australia 1 local government council 1 state government transport agency 1 private industrial resource provider Sent back with prepaid envelopes

12. Method--participants This occupation’s feature: much more male Sample distribution (n=323) GenderAge Male 93.5% 30-39 22% Female 6.5% 40-49 43% 50-59 23%

13. Method--measures Modification of Safety Climate Questionnaire--Modified for Drivers : Likert 5-point scale (Glendon and Litherland, 2001) Modification of Driver Behavior Questionnaire : Likert 6-point scale (Lawton, Parker; Manstead, & Stradling, 1997) errors during reversing

14. Method--measures

18. Results Exploratory factor analysis Pearson correlation coefficients of safety climate elements Hierarchical regression analysis –Calculation steps were according to the factors strength from literature review –sequence: overall work-related driver behavior →driver distraction →traffic violations →driver error →pre-trip vehicle maintenance

19. Results

20. Hierarchical regression analysis

24. Results

26. Significant factors: safety rules → communication → management commitment (strong → weak) For driving behavior, driver distraction was the most significant. Driving hours per week was significantly associated with pre-trip car maintenance.

27. Conclusion Quantitative interview before survey was useful to find out the real problem. Potential ways to improve safety climate –proposing reasonable safety rules –clearly showing the commitment on safety to workers –communicating events which might harm the safety, with “open” attitude.

28. The End Thank You