Why some road safety problems are more difficult to solve than others

Elvik, Rune

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.020

Cited by 133 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Speeding would contribute to more severe accident due to high impact [3], yet difficult to handle since it is a widespread phenomenon [4]. The offence of speeding have found to be associated with driver impulsivity [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences of Driving Experience and Gender on Traffic Offences Among Malaysian Motorists

Liew¹,

Hamidun²,

Soid³

2017

MATEC Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This study attempt to examine the influence of driving experience and gender on different traffic offences. Questionnaire survey was conducted to measure the frequency of committing eleven types of traffic. Data collected were analysed using t-test and Chi-square. Results indicate that male drivers have high score in speeding, red light running, tailgating and using emergency lane. Significant differences emerged between driving experiences in speeding, red light running, dangerously cutting into traffic, using hand phone while driving/riding and driving/riding with noncompliance specification vehicle.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences of Driving Experience and Gender on Traffic Offences Among Malaysian Motorists

Liew¹,

Hamidun²,

Soid³

2017

MATEC Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other factors that make some causes intractable to fix have been reported, for instance regarding the road domain (Elvik, 2010 The particular place is fixed…”

Section: Difficult Fixes Are Not Suggestedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Heinrich, 1931;1934;Gordon, 1949;Lehto and alvendy, venson, ell n, 2 ollnagel, 2 eveson, 2 Sklet, 2004;Factor et al, 2007;Santos-Reyes and Beard, 2009). Fewer studies (e. g. Elvik, 2010) focus on difficulties of fixing what has been found. Modern accident models focus on factors and relations other than those focusing on humans closest to the events.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What you find is not always what you fix—How other aspects than causes of accidents decide recommendations for remedial actions

Lundberg

Rollenhagen

Hollnagel

2010

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In accident investigation, the ideal is often to follow the principle "what-you-find-iswhat-you-fix", an ideal reflecting that the investigation should be a rational process of first identifying causes, and then implement remedial actions to fix them. Previous research has however identified cognitive and political biases leading away from this ideal. Somewhat surprisingly, however, the same factors that often are highlighted in modern accident models are not perceived in a recursive manner to reflect how they influence the process of accident investigation in itself. Those factors are more extensive than the cognitive and political biases that are often highlighted in theory. Our purpose in this study was to reveal constraints affecting accident investigation practices that lead the investigation towards or away from the ideal of "what-you-find-is-what-you-fix". We conducted a qualitative interview study with 22 accident investigators from different domains in Sweden. We found a wide range of factors that led investigations away from the ideal, most which more resembled factors involved in organizational accidents, rather than reflecting flawed thinking. One particular limitation of investigation was that many investigations stop the analysis at the level of "preventable causes", the level where remedies that were currently practical to implement could be found. This could potentially limit the usefulness of using investigations to get a view on the "big picture" of causes of accidents as a basis for further remedial actions.

show abstract

“…Assuming that if only the causes can be found, then accidents can be prevented, then it would be reasonable to focus efforts on better analysis methods. However, other issues than weak analysis methods can derail investigations (Elvik, 2010; during all phases, even before having started. For instance, investigation resources, such as money or staff, can be lacking so that some kinds of investigations cannot be done.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for dealing with resistance to recommendations from accident investigations

Lundberg

Rollenhagen

Hollnagel

et al. 2012

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Accident investigation reports usually lead to a set of recommendations for change. These recommendations are, however, sometimes resisted for reasons such as various aspects of ethics and power. When accident investigators are aware of this, they use several strategies to overcome the resistance. This paper describes strategies for dealing with four different types of resistance to change. The strategies were derived from qualitative analysis of 25 interviews with Swedish accident investigators from seven application domains. The main contribution of the paper is a better understanding of effective strategies for achieving change associated with accident investigation.

show abstract

Why some road safety problems are more difficult to solve than others

Cited by 133 publications

References 10 publications

Differences of Driving Experience and Gender on Traffic Offences Among Malaysian Motorists

Differences of Driving Experience and Gender on Traffic Offences Among Malaysian Motorists

What you find is not always what you fix—How other aspects than causes of accidents decide recommendations for remedial actions

Strategies for dealing with resistance to recommendations from accident investigations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About