Comparing safety climate factors as predictors of work-

related driving behavior

Safety Science 37 (2006) 375-383Andrew R. Wills, Barry Watson, Herbert C. Biggs

報告者： 林秀芸

Outline

Objective

Literature review

Method

Results

Conclusion

objective

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

Literature review

Australia: work-related car accidents

– the largest cause of work fatalities

– 25% of work fatalities

(Haworth, 2002)

Literature review

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

Method--participants

This occupation’s feature: much more male

Sample distribution (n=323)

Gender Age

Male

93.5%

30-39

22%

Female

6.5%

40-49

43%

  50-59

23%

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

Method--measures

Method--measures

Method--measures

Method--measures

Results

Exploratory factor analysisPearson correlation coefficients of safety climate elementsHierarchical 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

Results

Hierarchical regression analysis

Hierarchical regression analysis

Hierarchical regression analysis

Hierarchical regression analysis

Results

Results

Results

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.

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.

The End

Thank You