| 摘要: | 一、 前言
在英國與比利時，腳踏車騎士於自行車專用逆向車道行駛，可以減少與車輛碰撞風險的發生；同樣的，在無人行道之路段用面向車流的方式行走，可以顯著提升行人的安全性。根據台灣警政署道路交通事故統計資料顯示，若以死亡人數合計，行人死亡占12.96%，僅次於機車及小客車，是不容忽視的一項道路交通安全問題。本研究假設行人在道路上背對車流行走之死亡率與頭部外傷率皆高於面對車流行走之方式。
二、方法
本研究使用中華民國警政署100-105年的A1、A2交通事故檔，事故檔案件受理的條件為汽(機)車禍與動力機械行駛而發生於道路上之事故。A1報告表檔案指造成人員當場或24小時內死亡；A2檔案指造成人員受傷或超過24小時，兩檔內皆含有道路交通事故調查表一與表二。主要研究目的為分析行人面向與背向汽機車所造成的傷亡與頭頸部外傷的嚴重度。分析之自變數包括受傷者屬性、道路、環境因素和車輛特徵等；依變數為行人死亡與行人頭部創傷；本研究使用卡方檢定，以檢驗自變項與兩類依變項是否有顯著差異；顯著的影響因子(P <0.2)併入二元邏輯式回歸模型，估算行人於道路上之車輛撞擊所致的傷亡和頭頸部創傷的機率。
三、結果
總共納入A1A2 交通意外事故共3,616,997筆資料，經過資料合併與篩選，行人面向與背向汽機車死亡與受傷人數共14,345人，分別有199人死亡(1.38%)，14,146人(98.62%)受傷，與面向汽機車行走的行人相比，背向車流行走的行人之死亡(1.46% vs. 1.15%)與頭頸部創傷(7.50% vs. 0.94% vs. 0.91% vs. 0.05%)的比率更高。二元邏輯式迴歸模型顯示，行人死亡與頭頸部創傷之影響因子包括:老年人(死亡AOR: 9.19；頭頸部創傷AOR: 2.16)、男性駕駛者(死亡AOR: 1.86；頭頸部創傷AOR: 1.20)、酒駕(頭頸部創傷AOR: 1.21)、大型肇事車種(死亡AOR: 3.13；頭頸部創傷AOR: 2.98)、夜晚無燈光照明下(死亡AOR: 2.48頭頸部創傷AOR: 1.59)與凌晨時段(死亡AOR: 2.21；頭頸部創傷AOR: 1.46)。
四、結論
行人走在道路上，背對行走比面對汽機車行走更容易造成死亡與頭部創傷，而在老年族群裡傷害風險更加嚴重。當行人在無法看到來車的情況下與環境因素的影響，包含了夜晚能見度的降低，所造成死亡是明顯上升的。台灣雖有規劃行人道路專用道，但對於地理環境的狹小，仍會看到在道路上行走的行人，目前無法規來規範禁止行人行走於道路上，希望藉由此分析來宣導行人要面向車流行走；夜晚行走於有光照之下提高被駕駛者的注意，才可減少意外事故的發生。
Background
Allowing contraflow cycling on one-way streets has been reported to reduce crash risks in Belgium and the United Kingdom. Similarly, walking against traffic on roadways without sidewalks substantially improves pedestrian safety. According to the statistics of National Policy Agency, Ministry of the Interior statistics of traffic safety that pedestrian fatalities rate is 12.96%, second only to locomotives and vehicle. This is a road traffic safety issue that cannot be ignored.
Methods
Using Taiwan police-reported crash data in Taiwan between 2010 and 2016, which is road traffic accident reported of A1 and A2. The distribution of pedestrian injury severity according to a set of variables (e.g., human attributes, roadway or environmental factors, and vehicle characteristics) is first reported. We conducted chi-squared tests to examine the association between independent variables and pedestrian injury severity. Our study used chi-squared tests to discover variables that were significantly associated with the outcome variables (P< 0.2). These variables were then incorporated into the multivariate stepwise logistic regression models. Odds of pedestrian fatalities and head injuries were then estimated by using stepwise logistic regression models after controlling for a set of variables.
Result
Of the 14,345 pedestrians involved in crashes, 199 (1.38%) deaths and 14,146 (98.62%) injury were reported. Compared with pedestrians involved in against-traffic crashes, those in with-traffic crashes were more likely to sustain fatalities (1.46% vs. 1.15%) and head injuries (7.50% vs. 0.94% vs. 0.91% vs. 0.05%). Results of logistic regression models revealed several influential factors on pedestrian fatalities and head injuries, including elderly pedestrians (fatal AOR: 9.19; head injury AOR: 2.16), male drivers (fatal AOR: 1.86; head injury AOR: 1.20), intoxicated drivers (head injury AOR: 1.21), heavy vehicle as the crash partner (fatal AOR: 3.13; head injury AOR: 2.98), unlit streets in darkness (fatal AOR: 2.48; head injury AOR: 1.59) and in the midnight hours (fatal AOR: 2.21; head injury AOR: 1.46).
Discussion
Pedestrians in with-traffic crashes were more likely to sustain fatalities and head injuries compared with those in against-traffic crashes. Furthermore, the negative effect of walking with traffic on injuries was more pronounced in reduced-visibility conditions. |
