ops bersepadu hari raya 2011

Transcription

MRR 03/2012
Research Report
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
OPS BERSEPADU HARI RAYA 2011
Conducted over the Hari Raya Period from 23 August 2011
to 6 September 2011
Editors
Jamilah Mohd Marjan, PhD
Norlen Mohamed, MD
Mohd Rasid Osman, P Eng
Fuad Abas, P Eng
Mohd Faudzi Mohd Yusof, PhD
Wong Shaw Voon, PhD
Research Report
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Conducted over the Hari Raya Period from 23 August 2011 to
6 September 2011
Editors
Jamilah Mohd Marjan, PhD
Norlen Mohamed, MD
Fuad Abas, P Eng
Mohd Faudzi Mohd Yusof, PhD
Wong Shaw Voon, PhD
MIROS © 2012 All Rights Reserved
Published by:
Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS)
Lot 125-135, Jalan TKS 1, Taman Kajang Sentral,
43000 Kajang, Selangor Darul Ehsan.
Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia
Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ops Bersepadu Hari Raya 2011
conducted over the Hari Raya period from 23 August 2011 to
6 September 2011 editor Jamilah Mohd Marjan... [et al]
ISBN 978-967-5967-12-2
1. Traffic accidents--Research--Malaysia.
2. Traffic accidents--Research--Malaysia. II. Title.
624.151
For citation purposes
Jamilah MM, Norlen M, Mohd Rasid O, Fuad A, Mohd Faudzi MY, SV Wong (Eds.) (2012), Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of Ops Bersepadu Hari Raya 2011: Conducted over the Hari Raya Period from 23 August
2011 to 6 September 2011, MRR 03/2012, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research.
Printed by: Publications Unit, MIROS
Font type: Myriad Pro Light
Size
: 11 pt / 15 pt
DISCLAIMER
None of the materials provided in this report may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval
system, without written permission from MIROS. Any conclusion and opinions in this report may be subject
to reevaluation in the event of any forthcoming additional information or investigation.
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of OPS BERSEPADU HARI RAYA 2011
Conducted over the Hari Raya Period from 23 August 2011 to 6 September 2011
Project Leaders and Contributors
Project: General Accident Analysis During Ops Raya and Ops CNY
Project Leader:
Sharifah Allyana Syed Md Rahim
Project Contributors:
Rohayu Sarani
Hizal Hanis Hashim
Project: Traffic Volume
Project Leader:
Nor Aznirahani Mhd Yunin
Ramizam Noor Zaman
Nusayba Megat Johari
Project: Motorcycle Risk Analysis
Project Leader:
Ho Jen Sim
Akmalia Binti Shabadin
Project: In-depth Crash Investigation Study During Ops 24
Project Leader:
Siti Atiqah Mohd Faudzi
Abdul Rahmat Abdul Manap
Mohd Huzaifah Muntalip
Ahmad Noor Syukri Zainal Abidin
Fauziana Lamin
Mohamad Mahafiz Abd Rahim
Hazrul Affandy Hamalitdin
Mohd Syafeeq Ramli
Maryatini Md Saad
Tan Kean Lee
Muhammad Fhirdaus Shahrudin
iii
Ahmad Sharil Mohd Yusof
Mohd Hanif Md Ilias
Project: Road Users Information (Media)
Project Leader:
Maslina binti Musa
Nor Aini Mohd Rosdi
Norliana Ali Haidzir
Yusof Ghani
Muhammad Amien Md Hawari
Eddy Azuan Senin
Project: Speed Change Study
Project Leader:
Syed Tajul Malik Syed Tajul Arif
Ramizam Noor Zaman
Alvin Poi Wai Hoong
Ho Jen Sim
Norfaizah Mohamad Khaidir
Rohayu Sarani
Azzuhana Roslan
Project: Perception of Being Caught Study Among Road Users
Project Leader:
Noradrenalina Isah
Nor Fadilah Mohd Soid
Sanizah Saleh
Project: Perception of Being Caught Study Among Bus Driver
Project Leader:
Nor Fadilah Mohd Soid
Noradrenalina Isah
Sanizah Saleh
iv
Project: Compliancy of Helmet Wearing
Project Leader:
Mohd Khairul Alhapiz Ibrahim
Zarir Hafiz Zulkipli
Azzuhana Roslan
Mohd Hafzi Md Isa
Norfaizah Mohamad Khaidir
Abdul Rahmat Abdul Manap
Project: Seatbelt Wearing Among Vehicle Occupants
Project Leader:
Wahida Ameer Batcha
Mohamad Suffian Ahmad
Norlen Mohamed, MD
Project: Safety Level of Express Bus from Passenger’s Perspective
Project Leader:
Rabihah Ilyas
Nuura Addina Mohamad
Akmalia Shabadin
Mohamad Suffian Ahmad
Hawa Mohamed Jamil
Fuad Abas, P Eng
Mohd Huzaifah Muntalip
Project: Illegal Overtaking
Project Leader:
HizaL Hanis Hashim
Nur Fazzillah Mohd Nordin
Nurul Huda Jamaludin
Nor Aznirahani Mhd Yunin
Nusayba Megat Johari
v
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
x
xi
xiii
xv
1.0 Introduction
1
2.0 Analysis of Current Situation – Accident, Traffic Volume, Risks and
Crash Investigation
2.1 Accident data analysis based on Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) data
2.1.1 Introduction
2.1.2 Hypothesis
2.1.3 Findings
2.1.4 Summary
2.2 Traffic Volume Analysis
2.2.1 Introduction
2.2.2 Hypothesis
2.2.3 Findings
2.2.4 Summary
2.3 Motorcycle Risk Analysis
2.3.1 Introduction
2.3.2 Hypothesis
2.3.3 Findings
2.3.4 Summary
2.4 In-depth Road Crashes Investigation
2.4.1 Introduction
2.4.2 Findings
2.4.3 Summary
2
2
2
3
3
8
9
9
9
10
14
15
15
15
16
18
19
19
20
24
3.0 Advocacy
3.1 Road User Information (Media)
3.1.1 Introduction
3.1.2 Hypothesis
3.1.3 Findings
3.1.4 Summary
25
25
25
26
26
27
vii
4.0 Specific Studies Related to the Ops 4.1 Speed Change Study
4.1.1 Introduction
4.1.2 Hypothesis
4.1.3 Findings
4.1.4 Summary
4.2 Study on the Perception of Being Caught Among Road Users
4.2.1 Introduction
4.2.2 Hypothesis
4.2.3 Findings
4.2.4 Summary
4.3 Perception of Being Caught Among Bus Drivers
4.3.1 Introduction
4.3.2 Hypothesis
4.3.3 Findings
4.3.4 Summary
4.4 Compliancy with Helmet Use
4.4.1 Introduction
4.4.2 Hypothesis
4.4.3 Findings
4.4.4 Summary
4.5 Seatbelt Use Among Vehicle Occupants
4.5.1 Introduction
4.5.2 Hypothesis
4.5.3 Findings
4.5.4 Summary
4.6 Safety Level of Express Bus from Passengers’ Perspective
4.6.1 Introduction
4.6.2 Hypothesis
4.6.3 Findings
4.6.4 Summary
4.7 Overtaking
4.7.1 Introduction
4.7.2 Hypothesis
4.7.3 Findings
4.7.4 Summary
28
28
28
29
29 31
32
32
33
33
37
38
38
39
39
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
44
46
47
51
51
51
52
52
56
56
56
57
57
58
5.0 Conclusion
58
References
63
viii
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
66
66
70
73
74
75
76
79
ix
List of Tables
Page
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Crash data on LEKAS, PLUS and KL-Karak Expressways
12
Traffic volumes at each expressway
14
Relative risk for motorcyclist fatalities year 2011 (Ops Raya vs normal days) 17
Relative risk for motorcyclist fatalities year 2011 (with reference to year
2009)
17
Relative risk for motorcyclist fatalities year 2011 (Ops CNY vs Ops Raya)
17
Ratio of change in MC fatalities with reference to year 2009
18
Crash characteristic of fatal related motorcycle crash
23
Comparison of mean speed during and after Ops
29
Comparison of mean speed at locations without and with PMS
30
Analysis in road users’ perception of being caught for 2008 until 2011
festival periods
34
Comparison of road users’ perception of being caught between Ops
for each Hari Raya (Year 2008–2010)
35
Comparison of road users’ perception of being caught between Ops
for 2011 Hari Raya
36
Analysis in bus drivers’ overall perception of being caught for two
main periods
40
Comparison of bus drivers’ perception of being caught for two main
periods
40
Effectiveness of traffic enforcement methods conducted by
respective agencies
41
Comparison of mean scores POBC between the respective
enforcement methods
41
Likelihood of vehicle occupant seatbelt use during and after as
compared to before the Ops
48
Passenger’s perception on express bus performance
54
Passenger’s perception on driver’s behaviour
55
Study locations for illegal overtaking
57
Total volume and illegal overtaking during and after Ops Raya 2011
58
x
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1 Daily data for accidents, fatal accidents and fatalities during Ops Raya
2011
Figure 2 Daily fatalities during Ops Raya 2011 by road user type
Figure 3 Fatalities, motorcycle fatalities and total accident during Ops Raya 2009,
2010, 2011
Figure 4 Traffic volume profile along the KL-Karak Expressway
Figure 5 Comparison of heavy vehicle volume at PLUS, LPT, KL-Karak and
LEKAS Expressways
Figure 6 Traffic volume and accident along KL-Karak Expressway
Figure 7 Motorcyclist fatalities from 2009 to 2011
Figure 8 Frequency of media exposure
Figure 9 Media exposure and awareness level
Figure 10 Speed behaviour during and after the Ops
Figure 11 Percentage of visibility of traffic enforcement at all locations
Figure 12 Nationwide seatbelt use rate (Overall) December 2008–June 2010
Figure 13 Overall seatbelt use rate among vehicle occupants by the period of
the Ops at the sites with enforcement activities
xi
4
5
7
11
11
13
16
26
27
31
37
45
47
Acknowledgements
Ops Bersepadu Hari Raya 2011 involved the concurrence,
cooperation and input of several government agencies, nongovernmental agencies and the private sector. The government
agencies involved were the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), IPD
Seremban, IPK Kedah, IPK Perak, Road Transport Department
(JPJ), Negeri Sembilan JPJ, Kedah State JPJ, Perak State JPJ, Road
Safety Department (JKJR), Public Works Department (JKR),
Malaysian Highway Authority Board (LLM), PLUS Expressways,
MTD Prime Sdn Bhd, Kajang-Seremban Expressway (LEKAS),
South Intergrated Terminal (TBS), Klang Sentral Management
Terminal, Pengurusan Hentian Putra, Pengurusan Hentian Duta,
Perbadanan Pengurusan Terminal 1 Seremban S.E Ekspres Sdn
Bhd, Sani Ekspres Sdn Bhd, Konsortium Transnasional Berhad,
Jusco Ipoh, Tesco Ipoh, Tesco Seremban, and Tesco Mergong.
The editors would like to express their gratitude to all these
agencies and individuals for their invaluable time and the
important role they played in shaping this comprehensive report.
We are confident that this study will offer several compelling
reasons for the continuation of the intervention strategies to
enhance road safety in our nation.
xiii
Executive Summary
Annually, there are several festivals celebrated by the multi-racial
community in Malaysia, of which the two major festivals are the
Eid Festival (Raya) celebrated by all the Muslims and secondly
Chinese New Year (CNY), festival celebrated by Malaysians
Chinese descent. Among the traditions practiced during these
festival periods is the mass exodus of city residents to their
hometowns in several states either in the South, East or West of
the Peninsular.
It is during these festive seasons that the ‘Ops Bersepadu’ or
integrated enforcement activities by several agencies such as
the Road Transport Department (JPJ) and the Royal Malaysian
Police (PDRM) are implemented. The different strategies and
approach to enforcement are determined by the relevant
agencies respectively. These include strategies such as the
setting up of roadblocks, mobile and stationary patrols, presence
of enforcement at monitoring posts, issuance or non-issuance of
summonses and undercover enforcement.
In the process of determining the effectiveness of the Ops
during the festive seasons, a comparison of the accident analysis
data of the current Ops to those of the previous Ops since 2009
was carried out. The trend and its effectiveness were evaluated
using statistical methods. Comparisons were also made between
Ops Raya and Ops Chinese New Year (CNY). Relative risks on the
biggest vulnerable road user group; the motorcyclists were also
evaluated. The comparison in fatality data during the festive
seasons were compared to that of normal day and computed.
The traffic volume generated on the expressways by the exodus
before, during and after the Ops period was also monitored.
Accidents were evaluated to investigate if there is any relationship
with the increase in traffic volume. Despite the fact that 47% of
xv
total accidents and 73% of fatalities occurred on federal and state
roads, evaluation of traffic volume and accidents was not carried
out on federal and state roads due to the unavailability of traffic
data.
To understand the accident situation further, crash investigations
were carried out on high profile accidents as well as accidents
involving motorcycles that occurred during the Ops period. This
is in the hope of determining the causal factors of accidents,
fatalities and injuries.
The dissemination of media information through electronic and
printed media in the form of road safety advertisements, special
features and news during and after the Ops were also monitored
via media portal. This was the only known advocacy strategy
during Ops Raya 2011. No other advocacy programmes besides
the dissemination of information through the media to road
users were evaluated. The evaluation looked into the increase
in awareness level among road users in terms of their cognitive,
affective and conative inclination with different mode of media
information.
In order to further evaluate the effectiveness of the
implementation of the Ops, several research projects which
were targeted at different road users’ behaviour were carried out.
These include a speed study, a study on the perception of being
caught (POBC) among road users and bus drivers, research on
the compliance of helmet use and the type of helmet used, a
study on the passengers’ perceived safety level of express buses,
a study on seatbelt use and overtaking behaviour. These studies
were carried out close to the vicinity of the enforcement areas by
the related agencies.
The Ops enforcement programme was conducted to increase
compliance with the traffic laws and the perception of being
caught among road users. A high POBC indicates that road users
believes they are more likely to be caught if they infringe on
the traffic regulations, hence modify their behaviour towards
better safety. This programme may not be totally effective but
xvi
the operations are still relevant to prevent the drastic increased
in number of accidents and its efforts should be continued by
employing new approaches in order to improve compliance with
rules and regulations. Our study shows that a high percentage of
road users are still of the opinion that despite committing traffic
offences, their probability of being fined by the authorities is low.
However, a specific POBC study on bus drivers clearly indicated a
very high belief of being caught if they break traffic laws.
The Ops period in 2011 was seen to be effective when strategic
enforcement was implemented. The results on the speed analysis,
helmet use, and the POBC showed that the Ops were effective
as there were specific enforcement activities aimed at tackling
those problem areas. However, the rate of seatbelt use decreased
because road users were aware that there was no enforcement
activity carried out to catch road users who were not using their
seatbelts. This shows that general enforcement does not change
the attitude or perception of being caught among the road users.
However, strategic enforcement was effective as can be seen on
the bus drivers, motorcyclists with regards to helmet use; positive
results confirming the effectiveness and success of the strategic
enforcement were evident.
xvii
1.0 Introduction
The recent integrated operation, ‘Ops Bersepadu’ (Ops) during
the 2011 Raya festival was the 24th in the series since it was
begun in the year 1997. Despite the efforts put in by the related
agencies for the Ops, the number of fatalities rose to a figure of
289 fatalities over a 15-day period during the recent 2011 Ops
Raya. This increase from the previous Ops Raya in 2010 shows
an alarming trend and raises the question on whether Ops
Bersepadu is still effective since its first implementation.
During the 2011 Ops Bersepadu Raya, the Royal Malaysia Police
(PDRM) has adopted different strategies in its 24th Ops Sikap;
that is utilising the soft approach. This approach emphasises
on advocacy and advising motorists and motorcyclists instead
of only issuing summonses. The Road Transport Department
(JPJ) took a similar approach to the PDRM and also minimised
or did not set up roadblocks during the Ops Raya 2011. Other
programmes carried out include promotion of toll rates discounts
for those travelling during off-peak periods and the banning of
heavy vehicles on the road on specific days before and after Raya.
Advocacy through the media portal was run continuously before
and during the Ops period. However, despite the efforts put in,
the number of accidents and fatalities increased from that of the
2011 Ops CNY. There is a 31% increase in motorcycle fatalities
recorded for Ops Bersepadu Raya 2011.
MIROS, in its effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2011 Ops
Bersepadu has again developed a number of research projects.
The projects include road users’ information (from the media),
speed change study, study on perception of being caught
among road users and bus drivers, compliance of helmet use,
compliance of seatbelt use among vehicle occupants, safety
level of express bus from passenger’s perspective and overtaking
behaviour during Ops.
1
The current situational analysis of accidents and fatalities during
the Ops over the last three years was conducted and compared.
This report summarises the findings of the research in general.
The findings showed that specific and strategic enforcement
had significantly improved road safety. It was also observed that
accident and fatality statistics during Ops are not any different
from those of normal days although traffic flow normally doubles
or triples during the festive seasons. Therefore the enforcement
approach has to be reviewed and should not only be focused
during the festive seasons. In order to make a stronger impact,
enforcement activities throughout the year have to be strategised
together with efforts from other agencies such as the road
authorities, private road concessionaires, the public transport
operators and the Ministry of Health.
2.0 Analysis of Current Situation –
Accident, Traffic Volume, Risks and
Crash Investigation
2.1
Accident data analysis based on Royal
Malaysia Police (PDRM) data
2.1.1 Introduction
The accident data for the 15 days of the Ops Raya period was
obtained daily from the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) website.
The data gathered were total accidents, total fatal accidents, total
fatalities, and total fatalities by vehicle type. The data collected
within this period is considered as preliminary data as it may
differ slightly from the data obtained officially from PDRM at the
end of the year. The preliminary data may be lower as compared
to the official data obtained at the end of the year which includes
all deaths within the 30 days instead of the daily data obtained
during the Ops period.
2
The vehicle type for the preliminary data was classified into
nine main categories. The categories for vehicle types are car,
motorcycle, pedestrian, lorry, bus, van, jeep, bicycle and others.
2.1.2 Hypothesis
The evaluation was performed to confirm the hypotheses below.
•
The number of total accidents, overall fatalities and
motorcyclist fatalities during Ops Raya 2011 are lower than
those of Ops Raya 2010 and 2009.
•
The number of overall fatalities and motorcycle fatalities
during Ops Raya 2011 are lower than those of the normal
days in the year 2011.
•
The number of total accidents and overall fatalities during
Ops Raya 2011 are lower than those of Ops CNY 2011.
2.1.3 Findings
2.1.3.1 General evaluation
The number of total accidents, fatal accidents and fatalities
distribution during the Ops Raya 2011 is shown in Figure 1.
Generally the figures show a downward trend from day 3 towards
the first day of Raya. Unfortunately the downward trend did not
continue, instead it gradually increased starting on the second
day of Raya towards the end of the 2011 Ops Raya period. The
accident figure is in the range between 950 and 1,650 daily. The
total number during this 15-day period is 19,606. The highest
number of accident was recorded on the fourth day of Ops Raya
2011 (1,625) where it was suspected that most travellers started
travelling back to their hometown due to the long holiday in the
following week. The first day of Raya only recorded 980 accidents
and is the lowest daily number of accidents during the 2011 Ops
Raya period.
3
As a general rule, a fatal accident occurring in that period
resulted in at least one fatality. Therefore in Figure 1 the number
of fatalities will always be more or at least equal to the number
of fatal accidents. It can be observed that there is only four days
during which the number of fatalities is equal to the number
of fatal accidents. During these days each fatal accident only
resulted in one fatality, however during the rest of the Ops days
there was at least one fatal accident resulting in more than one
fatality. The lowest number of fatal accidents and the lowest
number of fatalities during this Ops period was recorded on 6
September with nine fatal accidents. The highest number of fatal
accidents and fatalities occurred on 2 September. On that day 25
fatal accidents were recorded which led to 28 fatalities.
Figure 1 Daily data for accidents, fatal accidents and fatalities during Ops Raya
2011
Figure 2 shows the number of daily fatalities by type of road users.
From a total of 201 deaths during this Ops, the most frequent road
user group that is involved in road accidents and the resulting
deaths is the motorcyclists with 61.6% of the overall fatality.
Car occupants recorded the second highest fatality rate after
motorcyclists; contributing to 23.2% of the overall fatality. There
were 12 fatalities among pedestrians which is the third highest
contributor to the statistics during the Ops. There was no fatality
among bus occupants recorded during this Ops. The fatalities for
4
users of jeeps, vans and lorries are about 3% each and fatalities
among bicycle and other users were only 1.2% respectively.
Throughout the 2011 Ops Raya, motorcyclists recorded the
highest number of fatalities everyday. The highest number of
motorcycle fatalities was recorded on 28 August with 18 fatalities,
followed by 5 September with 17 fatalities. On average there were
about 12 motorcycle fatalities daily during this 15-day period.
Meanwhile for car occupants the highest number of fatalities
recorded was eight on 4 September. On the first day of Ops Raya
2011 the number of fatalities among car occupants was at its
lowest with only one fatality recorded. During the 2011 Ops Raya
the daily average of car occupant fatalities was four. The average
number of pedestrian fatalities during this period is 1.3 daily.
Figure 2 Daily fatalities during Ops Raya 2011 by road user type
Generally the figure indicates that the highest number of
accidents and fatalities were concentrated on various types of
roads (refer to Figure A2.1 in Appendix A). The highest number
of accidents occurred on municipal roads with 36.88% of the
overall accidents, meanwhile federal roads recorded the highest
number of fatalities with 47.06% of the overall fatalities during
the Ops. Both total accidents and fatalities were lowest on other
5
types of roads. Only 10.10% and 9.43% of the total accidents and
fatalities respectively occurred on expressways. Hence it can be
concluded that federal roads are more dangerous during the Ops
seasons because they lead to the highest number of fatalities
although the number of total accidents recorded was very much
lower. Meanwhile accidents which occurred on municipal roads
were less severe as compared to those that occurred on other
types of roads.
2.1.3.2 Comparison Ops Raya 2011 to Ops Raya 2010 and
2009
The total number of accidents, fatalities and motorcycle fatalities
during Ops Raya 2009, 2010 and 2011 are shown in Figure 3. The
total number of accidents for Ops Raya 2009 is 17,335. This figure
is 3% less than that of Ops Raya 2010; 16,817. However there is a
marked increase of 16.6% in the total number of accident cases;
an increase from 16,817 to 19,606 cases between Ops Raya 2010
and Ops Raya 2011. The total number of accidents during the
2011 Ops Raya is 13.1% higher as compared to that of the 2009
Ops Raya. During the 2009 Ops Raya, the number of fatalities
recorded was 265; a reduction of 17 cases to 248 during the 2010
Ops Raya. Similarly, the total number of accidents and fatalities
during the 2011 Ops Raya increased by 16.5% as compared to
that of the 2010 Ops Raya. The pattern is also similar to the total
number of accidents and deaths among motorcyclists during
the 2011 Ops Raya as compared to the two previous Ops. There
were 148 motorcycle fatalities during the 2009 Ops Raya; a
reduction by five cases during the 2010 Ops Raya. Unfortunately
the figure increased tremendously by 24.5% to 178 cases during
the 2011 Ops Raya.
A one-way ANOVA test was performed to compare the mean
difference of these three variables during Ops Raya 2011 to
the two previous Ops Raya. The increase in the number of total
accidents during the 2011 Ops Raya as compared to the 2010
Ops Raya is statistically significant (p<0.05). In comparing the
total number of accidents during the 2011 Ops Raya with the
2009 Ops Raya, the increase in the total number of accidents was
6
not found to be statistically significant (p>0.05). Conversely the
increase in both overall fatality and motorcycle fatality statistics
during the 2011 Ops Raya as compared to the two previous Ops
was not found to be statistically significant.
Figure 3 Fatalities, motorcycle fatalities and total accidents during Ops Raya
2009, 2010, 2011
2.1.3.3 Comparison of Ops Raya 2011 to normal days 2011
The data from January to May 2011 was used to project the data
for the 15 normal days of 2011. For this period, the projected
number of total accidents is 17,802 and the projected number of
deaths is 273. The number of motorcyclist deaths was projected
to be 168 for the period of 15 normal days.
Chi square analysis was performed to investigate the difference in
the number of deaths (overall and motorcycle) and total number
of accidents during Ops Raya 2011 and the normal days of 2011.
The results from the analysis clearly indicate that the increase in
the number of deaths for both overall and motorcycle deaths
between these two periods is not significant (p>0.05) (refer to
Table A1.4 in Appendix A).
7
2.1.3.4 Comparison of Ops Raya 2011 to Ops CNY 2011
The performance of the 2011 Ops Raya was also compared to the
2011 Ops CNY. Generally it can be observed that all data during
the 2011 Ops Raya is higher than that of Ops CNY. On average, the
daily number of accidents during the 2011 Ops CNY is 1,152 as
compared to 1,307 during Ops Raya 2011. On average, the daily
fatalities during the 2011 Ops CNY is 13.3 but the daily average
of Ops Raya 2011 increased by 44.4% to 19.2. The total number
of accidents and overall fatalities during the 2011 Ops Raya
are significantly higher as compared to that of Ops CNY 2011
(p<0.05) (refer to Table A1.5 in Appendix A). The high number of
motorcycle fatalities during the 2011 Ops Raya compared to Ops
CNY 2011 is considered not statistically significant.
2.1.4 Summary
The increase in the total number of accidents during the 2011
Ops Raya is significant when compared to those of the Ops
Raya 2010 and Ops Raya 2009. There is cause for concern as the
increase may be due to the change in the current Ops strategy.
The higher numbers in the total accidents and total fatalities during
Ops Raya 2011 are significant as compared to those of Ops CNY
2011. This could be due to the high volume of traffic and greater
exposure during this 2011 Ops Raya period. The lack of strategic
enforcement too may have contributed to the increase in the
total number of accidents and fatalities. It was made known to the
public that during the 2011 Ops Raya there would be minimal or
no roadblocks set up to apprehend traffic offenders who speed,
fail to use their seatbelts, helmets and beat red lights. During Ops
2010 and 2009, road users who violated traffic regulations were
uncompromisingly issued with summonses. However this was
not the case in 2011 whereby the approach was to emphasise
on friendly enforcement and advocacy. Summonses were only
issued in cases involving heavy offences.
8
Unlike the total number of accidents, the increase in the total
number of deaths and motorcycle deaths during the 2011 Ops
Raya are not significant when compared to figures of 2010 and
2009. Likewise, the increase in motorcyclist fatalities during Ops
Raya when compared to that of Ops CNY is not significant. The
consistently high number of motorcyclist fatalities either before
or during Ops shows no significant difference. The Ops seems to
have no effect on motorcyclist fatalities.
2.2
Traffic Volume Analysis
2.2.1 Introduction
Traffic volumes were expected to increase during the 2011 Ops
Raya period, contributing towards higher vehicle-kilometre
travel (VKT) among road users that would eventually translate
into a higher crash risk. Therefore it is important to observe the
relationship between volume and crashes in traffic management
planning, in the effort to reduce the number of future crashes.
The data obtained for this study was provided by the Malaysian
Highway Authority (LLM) and ‘Pengurusan Lebuhraya Utara
Selatan’ (PLUS). The data obtained for the analysis comprises the
classified traffic volume and the total number of crashes which
occurred on four expressways (PLUS, LEKAS, LPT and KL-Karak) for
the period of 8 August until 21 September 2011. Vehicle count
was performed on a daily basis based on the number of vehicles
entering each toll plaza along selected expressways.
2.2.2 Hypothesis
The main objective of this study is to observe the effects of
the holiday seasons on the traffic volume trend; especially the
effectiveness of the strategy of banning heavy vehicles and the
effects of volume on the number of crashes. In this study the
following hypotheses were tested.
9
•
There is a significant increase in traffic volume during
Ops period as compared to before the Ops period for the
expressways.
•
There is a significant increase in crashes during Ops period as
compared to before the Ops period for the expressways.
•
There is a significant relationship between the average
traffic volume to the number of crashes for the expressways
throughout the observation period.
•
The strategy to ban heavy vehicles during the Ops period is
effective.
2.2.3 Findings
2.2.3.1 Average daily traffic volume
The traffic volume data from the PLUS Expressway, LEKAS
Expressway, Kuala Lumpur-Karak Expressway and East Coast
Expressway (LPT) was obtained. Figure 4 shows the classified
traffic volume data before, during, after for the KL-Karak
Expressway. Private motor vehicles (Class 1) were the largest
group of users of the four expressways. There was an increase in
traffic volume during the Ops Raya as compared to before and
after Ops. The traffic volume increased 12%, an increase from
1.3 million to 1.45 million vehicles along these four expressways.
The traffic volume charts for PLUS, LEKAS and LPT are shown in
Figures B2.1, B2.2 and B2.3 in Appendix B.
10
Figure 4 Traffic volume profile along the KL-Karak Expressway
Heavy vehicles were banned from using the roads during two
periods i.e. on 27–28 August , and 3–4 September. Figure 5 shows
the volume profile of heavy vehicles on the four expressways
before, during and after Ops. It was observed that the volume
of heavy vehicles was low from 27 August to 4 September
2011 whereas the average traffic volume dropped from 50,000
to approximately 30,000 per day. The overall percentage drop
in heavy vehicles was 40%. This indicates that the strategy of
banning heavy vehicles was observed by most lorry companies.
Figure 5 Comparison of heavy vehicle volume at PLUS, LPT, KL-Karak and
LEKAS Expressways
11
2.2.3.2 Crash on expressway
Table 1 shows the number of crashes that occurred on the
four expressways. It can be seen that KL-Karak shows the
highest percentage of reduction, 45%, as compared to the
other expressways. However, based on the absolute difference
in number of crashes, PLUS expressway recorded the highest
number of crash reduction during the Ops period as compared
to before the Ops period. This is true since the denominator for
the PLUS is higher as compared to KL-Karak, and the fact that
PLUS covers a greater distance than KL-Karak which increases
the commuters’ exposure and the chances of being involved in a
crash is also higher for the commuters.
Table 1
Crash data on LEKAS, PLUS and KL-Karak Expressways
Expressway
concessionaires
Before Ops
Number of crashes
During Ops
Difference in number
of crashes (%)
Number of crashes
LEKAS
14
13
7
PLUS
383
354
KL-Karak
42
23
45
LPT
43
42
2
7.5
Figure 6 shows the distribution of traffic volume and accidents
before, during and after the 2011 Ops Raya along the KL-Karak
Expressway. Despite the fact there was a marked increase in traffic
volume during the Ops, the increase in the number of accidents
however was not significant. This finding is similar to those of the
other three expressways, as can be seen in Figures B2.4, B2.5 and
B2.6 in Appendix B.
12
Figure 6 Traffic volume and accident along KL-Karak Expressway
2.2.3.3 Relationship between average daily traffic volume
and number of crash on expressway
As can be seen in Table 2, the number of crashes showed a
decreasing trend for before and during the Ops period with the
highest reduction of 45% for the KL-Karak expressway despite
the 70% increase in traffic volume. The increase in traffic volume
contributed to the reduction of the number of crashes during
the Ops period for the KL-Karak expressway. This reduction could
be due to the increase in traffic flow which has reached optimal
expressway capacity, resulting in the reduction of vehicle
travelling speed and better safety.
Retrospectively, the LPT expressway recorded the highest
increase in average daily traffic volume with 75% whilst the
numbers of crashes for before and during the Ops period are
almost similar. This shows that the increase in traffic volume has
minimal effect on the commuters’ exposure since there was
only a reduction of 2% in the number of crashes throughout the
observation period.
From the traffic volume analysis it can be concluded that there
is an increase in the traffic volume during the Ops period as
13
compared to the before Ops period for expressways. This may
be due to the high number of commuters on the road heading
towards their home towns and visiting their relatives and friends
during the Hari Raya period, taking advantage of the long holiday
of the festive season.
The number of crashes occurring on the expressways showed
no significant change for the same Ops period. The significant
increase in the number of traffic volume on the expressways
could be the reason behind the decreasing trend of crashes
during the Ops period as compared to before the Ops period for
the expressways.
Generally it can be seen from Table 2 that there is a reduction
in the number of traffic crashes with the increase in average
daily traffic volume but evidently a correlation test proved that
there is no significant linear relationship between the average
traffic volume and the number of crashes for the expressways
throughout the observation period.
Table 2
Traffic volumes at each expressway
Expressway
concessionaires
LEKAS
Before Ops
Average
daily traffic
During Ops
Number
of crash
Difference in
average
daily
Average
Number
traffic
(%)
daily traffic of crash
Difference
in number
of crash (%)
35,137
14
48,145
13
37
1,158,064
383
1,227,290
354
6
KL-Karak
78, 394
42
133,210
23
70
45
LPT
23,559
43
41,345
42
75
2
PLUS
7
7.5
2.2.4 Summary
The evaluation on traffic volume over the Ops period was
only carried out on four expressways namely PLUS, LEKAS, LPT
and the KL-Karak expressways. No evaluation was performed
on the federal roads or state roads due to the unavailability of
data from the Highway Planning Unit, Ministry of Works. It was
observed that although the traffic volume increased during the
14
Ops period along these four expressways, there was a reduction
in the occurrence of accidents during that period. The increase
in traffic volume during the Ops did not cause any significant
increase in the number of accidents on expressways. There was
no significant change in the number of accidents before and
during the period.
Finally the strategy of banning heavy vehicles during the period
of 27 and 28 August, and 3 and 4 September is effective with a
40% reduction in the total heavy vehicle volume for the same
observation period.
2.3
Motorcycle Risk Analysis
2.3.1 Introduction
Motorcyclist fatalities dominate the number of traffic accidents
in Malaysia. Every year, motorcyclist fatalities hover around
60% of the total fatalities and the number remains high during
festive seasons despite implementation of several intervention
measures. To evaluate whether the risk faced by motorcyclists
are higher during the festive seasons as compared to normal
days, accident data such as the total fatalities and motorcyclist
fatalities were obtained from the Royal Malaysia Police database
for Ops CNY, Ops Raya and projected accident data for normal day
periods between 2009 and 2011. The objective of this analysis is
to evaluate the risk faced by motorcyclists during normal days,
Ops Raya and Ops CNY.
2.3.2 Hypothesis
In this study, only one hypothesis was tested.
•
Motorcyclists are more at risk during Ops Raya than during
normal days.
15
2.3.3 Findings
A relative risk (RR) analysis was performed on three years’ worth
of accidents data for three different periods (Ops Raya, Ops CNY
and projected 15-normal day period) from 2009 to 2011. Figure
7 depicts the motorcyclist fatality statistics during Ops CNY, Ops
Raya and 15-day projected normal day periods between year
2009 and 2011. It is interesting to note that both Ops CNY and
Ops Raya in 2010 had recorded a drop in motorcyclist fatalities
but this took a turn for the worse in 2011. In this Ops Raya 2011,
motorcyclist fatalities increased from 143 cases in Ops 2010 to
178 cases in Ops 2011 (around 25% increase). Evidently the total
fatalities during Ops Raya was generally higher than Ops CNY in
the past two years (at 17%–31% higher). However, despite the
lower absolute number of fatalities during Ops CNY, it has higher
proportion of motorcyclist fatalities as compared to that of the
Ops Raya. Ops CNY 2011 recorded 68.3% of motorcyclist fatalities
while motorcyclists accounted for 61.5% of the total number of
fatalities during Ops Raya 2011.
Figure 7 Motorcyclist fatalities from 2009 to 2011
16
Further analysis of accidents involving motorcycles shows that
the RR of motorcyclists who were involved in fatal accidents
during Ops Raya 2011 is 1.002 times higher as compared to
that of the normal days (refer Table 3). In other word, the RR of
motorcyclist fatalities during Ops Raya 2011 is approximately the
same as normal day. While comparing the motorcyclist fatalities
2011 with year 2009, it was found out that the RR of motorcyclist
fatalities of Ops Raya is 1.10 times higher than that of the 2009
Ops Raya (Table 4).
Table 3
Relative risk of motorcyclist fatalities in year 2011 (Ops Raya vs normal days)
Period of time
Total of fatalities MC fatalities
Percentage
RR
Normal day
273
168
61.5
(base)
Ops Raya
289
178
61.6
1.002
Table 4
Relative risk of motorcyclist fatalities in year 2011 (with reference to year 2009)
Year
Total of fatalities
MC fatalities
RR motorcycle
Normal
day
Ops
CNY
Ops
Raya
Normal
day
Ops
CNY
Ops
Raya
Normal
day
2009
281
212
265
169
152
148
2010
288
201
248
169
122
143
0.98
0.85
1.03
2011
273
199
289
168
136
178
1.02
0.95
1.10
Relative risk of motorcyclist fatalities in year 2011 (Ops CNY vs Ops Raya)
Period of time
Total of fatalities
MC fatalities
Percentage
RR
Ops Raya
289
178
61.6
(base)
Ops CNY
199
136
68.3
1.11
17
Ops
Raya
Base
Table 5 presents the results of RR for motorcyclist fatalities in year
2011 for Ops CNY and Ops Raya. The results show that the RR for
motorcyclist fatalities is 1.11 times higher than that of Ops Raya.
Table 5
Ops
CNY
Using the annual fatality profiles from the year 2009 as base, it
was found out that the ratio of change in motorcyclist fatalities
during Ops Raya 2011 is 1.34 when compared with Ops CNY in
Table 6. This can be seen from the increase of 20% of fatalities
during Ops Raya from 2009 to 2011 while there was a decline of
fatalities during Ops CNY for the same period. The change in Ops
Raya 2011 motorcyclist fatalities with reference to year 2009 is
1.21 times of the normal day period.
Table 6
Year
Ratio of change in MC fatalities with reference to year 2009
Motorcycle fatalities
Ratio of change for MC fatalities
Normal day
Ops CNY
Ops Raya
Ops CNY vs
normal day
Ops Raya vs
normal day
Ops Raya vs
CNY
2009
169
152
148
-
-
-
2010
169
122
143
0.80
0.97
1.20
2011
168
136
178
0.90
1.21
1.34
Motorcycle fatalities contributed around 56%–62% of the total
number of fatalities during Ops Raya 2009–2011 and the fatalities
profile is increasing. The RR of motorcycle fatalities in Ops Raya
2011 is 1.10 times greater than Ops Raya 2009. The results reveal
that motorcyclists were slightly at risk during Ops Raya 2011
than during normal days (1.002 times) but the RR for motorcycle
fatalities during Ops Raya was marginally lower than Ops CNY
(0.901 times).
2.3.4 Summary
Motorcyclists were only slightly more at risk during Ops Raya
when compared to normal day. Therefore it is indispensable
that advocacy and enforcement activities towards the safety of
the motorcyclists should be planned and executed throughout
the year and not just during the Ops during festive seasons.
Likewise the motorcyclists are more at risk during Ops Raya when
compared to Ops CNY. Thus it is vital to see the differences in
terms of exposure, travel pattern and the specific enforcement
activities during CNY as compared to those undertaken during
Raya.
18
2.4
In-depth Road Crashes Investigation
2.4.1 Introduction
Crash investigation on high profile cases is an operationalised
programme, conducted throughout the year. By definition, any
cases involving three fatalities and above will be considered for
case selection. Similar to previous Ops, any high profile cases
which occurred during Ops will be selected and summarised into
a case report study. From all Ops activities since 2009 until Ops
CNY 2011, the MIROS Crash Investigation Team has investigated
18 high profile cases involving 64 fatalities.
However due to the increase in the number of fatal motorcycle
crashes in the recent Ops, the criteria for case selection was
revised. To date, none of motorcycle crashes has been captured
throughout the crash investigation operation during the Ops
period. It is widely known that motorcycle casualties hold the
highest percentage of road traffic crashes in Malaysia. Even in
the Ops 2011 the number of motorcycle fatality cases (178 fatal
cases) increased with the average of 11 to 17 fatalities per day.
Thus for this year’s Ops, a new approach has been taken by the
Crash Investigation Team in order to tackle the problem. The team
has decided to expand the in-depth investigation operation of
motorcycle crashes during the Ops. This new approach is hoped
to be able to provide more findings on the issues related to
motorcycle and also high profile cases.
The areas of in-depth investigation are vehicle condition, damage
profiles, environment details, injury details of occupants and the
most probable contributing factor of the investigated crash. This
detailed investigation will provide specific insights into how the
crashes and corresponding injuries occur.
The notification of the crashes that happened during the 2011
Ops Raya was acquired through the media. Based on the media
coverage, it was found out that 26 cases involving fatalities
19
happened during the Ops period. Out of the 26 fatal cases,
only two cases which resulted in three deaths and above were
identified.
2.4.2 Findings
2.4.2.1 In-depth crash investigation on high profile cases
(three deaths and above)
Both high profile cases were investigated by the Crash
Investigation Team. The summary and the detail investigation
findings are as follows.
Case 1: Batu Pahat case (three fatalities)
The crash happened on 4th September 2011 approximately at
about 0245 hours at KM 113.6, Jalan JB–Seremban involving a
Perodua Kancil and a Proton Saga. The crash happened when
the Perodua Kancil suddenly swerved into the opposite lane
and collided head-on with the oncoming Proton Saga. The
weather was reported to be fine during the crash. Due to the
collision, three occupants of the Perodua Kancil died while, two
of the Proton Saga occupants sustained minor injuries while the
remaining two escaped uninjured.
The crash scene investigation revealed no road defect. The stretch
where the accident happened was a straight, two-lane single
carriageway road with broken line median marking. Street lights
were available along the stretch. Both vehicles were inspected
and all the pertaining damages were measured. The inspection
showed that the Perodua Kancil sustained severe frontal damages
with intrusion to the front passengers space while the Proton
Saga sustained minor frontal damages without intrusion.
Based on the evidence and findings gathered, there is a high
probability that driver fatigue could have contributed to the
crash. This was supported by the fact that the crash happened
during the wee-hours and the Perodua Kancil driver has been
travelling for a long distance (from Kelantan to Johor). The cause
20
of death of the Kancil occupants is the internal injuries as a
result of their failure to use their seatbelts. In addition, structural
incompatibility of both vehicles may have contributed to the
severity of the crash. The Kancil showed poor performance in
terms of its crashworthiness as compared to the Saga.
Case 2: Lahad Datu case (four fatalities)
The crash occurred at about 0800 hours on 5th September 2011
at KM 24 Jalan Lahad Datu–Sandakan. The crash involved a car
(Proton Saga) and a pick-up truck. The car driver had been trying
to overtake a mini bus at a long corner and collided with the
oncoming pick-up truck. Four occupants of the car died while
one occupant was seriously injured. The occupants of the pickup truck suffered minor injuries due to the collision.
The crash happened at the curved single carriageway with
double line median marking road. No road defect was observed
at the crash site. The car was completely wrecked as a result
of the collision while the pick-up truck sustained minor frontal
damages.
The primary event that led to the crash was the attempt to
overtake at a double line and at a bend by the Proton driver.
The issue of incompatibility is prominent in this case whereby
mismatched height geometry was identified. The stiffer part of
the pick-up truck struck the upper structure of the car, leading
to higher severity of injuries to the car occupants. The car also
displayed severe structural corrosion which may indicate aging
that might have also contributed to the high number of lives lost
in the accident.
2.4.2.2 In-depth crash investigation on motorcycle
crashes
Out of 178 cases involving motorcycles nationwide, 75 cases were
included in this study. The highest involvement of motorcyclists
in terms of age was those aged 16 to 30 (52%) and followed by
21
those aged more than 30 (33%). Over 90% of the motorcyclists
are male. A majority of the crashes occurred during the night and
wee hours (52%) followed by those happening in the evening
(17%).
Distribution of cases by road type shows that, federal roads
account for the highest number in terms of road type (36%)
followed by municipal roads (29%). Multiple vehicle crashes are
predominant; accounting for 71% of cases whereas only 29%
of the cases were single vehicle crashes. Crash configuration
of multiple vehicle crashes revealed that, motorcycles which
collided with cars account for 55%, other motorcycles (23%),
MPVs and SUVs (5.4%) and lorries (16.1%). The head on and side
impact collisions were 25% respectively.
A majority of the motorcyclists were not legitimate license holders
(41%) followed by motorcyclists who were licensed (30%). 14% of
the cases were classified as unknown. Among the non-licensed
group, the figure was over represented by the age group 16 to
30 (57%) whereas 17% belonged to the age group 16 and below
(refer to Table C1.1 in Appendix C).
Majority of motorcyclist (41%) which involved in motorcycle
fatal crashes did not convict any violation based of violation
categories. Speeding and loss of control account for the second
highest (21%) followed by overtaking (15%) and reckless turning
(11%). In term of injury outcome, 57% of the cases were identified
as death during transportation/hospital case.
22
Table 7
Crash characteristic of fatal related motorcycle crash
Category
Age of occupant
Gender of occupant
Subcategory
Frequency (%)
<14
4 (4.9)
14-16
8 (9.9)
16–30
42 (51.9)
>30
27 (33.3)
Male
75 (92.6)
Female
Time of crash
Type of road
6 (7.4)
0:00–5:59
20 (26.0)
6:00–8:59
7 (9.1)
9:00–11:59
7 (9.1)
12:00–13:59
5 (6.5)
14:00–15:59
5 (6.5)
16:00–19:59
13 (16.9)
20:00–23:59
20 (26.0)
Expressway
3 (3.9)
Federal
28 (36.4)
State
19 (24.7)
Municipal
22 (28.6)
Village Road
Collision type
5 (6.5)
SVA
23 (29.5)
Tree
0 (0.0)
Narrow object
2 (8.7)
Wide object (fence/parked car)
5 (21.7)
Other (animal, pedestrian, hole)
4 (17.4)
Drain embankment culvert
Multiple
Crash configuration
2 (8.7)
Barrier
6 (26.1)
55 (70.5)
Passenger car
30 (54.5)
Motorcycle
13 (23.6)
MPV/SUV
3 (5.5)
Bus
1 (1.8)
Lorry
8 (14.5)
Head-on
16 (29.6)
Mrear
10 (18.5)
Vrear
8 (14.8)
Side
17 (31.5)
Sideswipe
3 (5.6)
23
2.4.3 Summary
Based on the investigated cases, crash compatibility issue is the
prominent issue in both cases that might have led to the severity
of the occupant injury. This finding is similar to that of MIROS
Crash Investigation and Reconstruction Annual Statistical Report
that mentioned crash compatibility contributes the highest
percentage of passenger car crashes; around 14.7%. While the
report also found out that risky driving and fatigue are the most
common causes of crash. Fatigue accounts for 7.7% of crashes
involving passenger cars and risky driving accounts for 18% of
the number of cases involving passenger cars. This result is similar
to the finding of the investigated cases whereby fatigue and risky
driving were identified as the most probable contributing factor
to the crashes.
Nevertheless, the two investigated cases are not applicable in
representing the scenario of the high profile cases happening
in Malaysia especially during Ops 24 as the number of the
investigated cases is too limited. Using Media Portal as the only
medium to monitor the daily number of crashes happening
was not sufficient in capturing the real number. This condition
was determined as one of the limitations in the in-depth crash
investigation on high profile cases (three deaths and above)
operation during Ops 24 that needs to be taken into account.
Moreover, the lack of manpower to attend and investigate
crashes that happened during Ops 24 also need to be considered
as a limitation in this operation.
It might seem intuitive that the increase of number of vehicle
travelling from urban to rural during this festive season might
contribute to the increase in crashes involving urban drivers
in rural counties. However this study shows that this may not
necessarily be true. A majority of motorcyclists and other vehicle
users were identified as resident to the county. However, several
caveats have to be made. Firstly, this study does not make any
comparison between the number of cases involving nonresident vehicles before and during the Ops period. Secondly,
motorcycles may not accurately represent the effect of the
24
increase in the number of vehicles during the Ops with the
overall number of crashes. Based from the result, most of the
cases involving local travel were experienced by motorcyclists.
It may indicate that the use of motorcycle is mainly for shorter
distances instead of for extended journeys.
3.0 Advocacy
3.1
Road User Information (Media)
3.1.1 Introduction
Advocacy programmes for road users is one of the most
important strategies in an effort to reduce accident fatalities and
change road user behaviour. It is conducted to determine the
effects of road safety information among road users during the
Ops Hari Raya period. The monitoring of the degree of advocacy
is divided into two: (i) the dosage of road safety messages; (ii) the
level of awareness on road safety messages.
The exposure of road safety information is derived from a
database that monitors news and road safety information
through the media (television, radio and newspaper). Meanwhile
the level of awareness on road safety messages is determined
through surveys conducted among road users. The dosage was
derived from a database that was employed to monitor news
related to road safety. However, there are limitations to the
dosage monitoring whereby the road safety advertisements
were only from the Road Safety Department. This is due to the
confidentiality of data from other companies in revealing their
advertisements and time of broadcast.
25
3.1.2 Hypothesis
•
There is an increase in media exposure of road safety during
Ops period.
•
Media exposure increases the awareness level (cognitive,
affective and conative) among road users.
3.1.3 Findings
Figure 8 shows the frequency of the exposure on road safety
messages through the media. It was observed that there was
an increment of 40.4% of exposure of road safety information
from before to during the Ops. After the Ops period, the level of
exposure was reduced to a mean of 27 per day.
Figure 8 Frequency of media exposure
The level of awareness on road safety among users lies high on
affective (84.3%) whereby the respondents agreed that they feel
the need to be safe on the road. A total of 82.1% respondents
admitted that they changed their behaviour (conative) during
the Raya period. However, only a total of 48.6% of respondents
agreed that road safety information received during the Ops
Raya period has increased their knowledge (cognitive) on road
26
safety. This has shown the importance of road safety messages
during the 2011 Ops Raya. Figure 9 shows the level of awareness
before, during and after the Ops period at different exposure
frequencies.
Figure 9 Media exposure and awareness level
3.1.4 Summary
Information on road safety is still crucial in reminding road users
to be safe on the road. This can be seen through the surveys that
when there is high exposure to information, the level of awareness
is also quite high when referring to change of behaviour.
However, the road safety information must be channelled
correctly to reach the targeted road users. This is to ensure that
road users from all target groups are exposed to road safety
information.
27
4.0 Specific Studies Related to the
Ops
In light of determining the effectiveness of the Ops programme
several analyses on enforcement-related activities were
conducted. These include the analysis on speed change
behaviour, the perception of being caught among road users,
helmet and seatbelt use compliancy, overtaking behaviour, the
perception of being caught among bus drivers and passengers’
perception on the safety of public buses.
4.1
Speed Change Study
4.1.1 Introduction
Speeding has been found to be one of the major contributing
factors to road accidents. Speeding is the number one road
safety problem in most countries around the world. A study has
shown that a 5% reduction in the average travelling speed could
result in a 20% reduction in fatalities (OECD/ECMT 2006).
Enforcement is also known to influence the drivers’ behaviour
towards speeding. Research indicates that the presence of
enforcement activities (e.g. speed trap, automated enforcement
system) can lead to the reduction in the mean speed (Richard
et al. 2003; Nathaniel et al. 1996). During the Ops, the national
speed limit for federal roads was reduced from 90 km/h to 80
km/h which included all these four study locations.
This study was carried out in conjunction with the commencement
of the 2011 Ops Raya. During the 2011 Ops Raya, the national
federal road speed limit was reduced to 80 km/h. The objective of
this study is to give an overview of the effect of police monitoring
enforcement activities on the speed behaviour. It also studies the
difference in speed profile during and after the Ops.
28
4.1.2 Hypothesis
•
The mean speed during the Ops is lower as compared to the
mean speed after the Ops.
•
The mean speed around police observation spots (PMS) is
lower than the mean speed around areas without police
observation.
4.1.3 Findings
4.1.3.1 Speed during and after Ops
It was observed that the mean speed after the Ops is higher
as compared to the speed during the Ops. From the statistical
analysis, it was found out that generally, the mean speed during
the Ops is significantly lower than the mean speed after the Ops
(p < 0.05). Table 8 below shows the mean speed for all the study
locations during and after the Ops.
The lower speed during the Ops may be due to the road users
perception of police monitoring at the PMS. This may lead road
users to lower their travelling speed. Additionally, higher volume
of traffic during the Ops may lead to lower travelling speed. Table
2 shows that there is a lower traffic volume consistently across
the locations after the Ops. In overall, traffic volume after the Ops
is 14.3% lower compared to during the Ops (refer to Table D1.1
in Appendix D).
Table 8
Comparison of mean speed during and after Ops
During Ops
After Ops
Segamat
Location
76.5
82.8
Tampin
72.5
71.3
K. Selangor
89.4
89.2
T. Malim
84.3
85.0
Overall
80.8
82.2
29
4.1.3.2 Speed at Locations Without and With Police
Monitoring Spots
Table 9 shows a comparison of the mean speed between sites
without and with PMS. It is clearly seen that the speed around
locations with PMS was generally lower as compared to the
mean speed at locations without PMS. All the four locations
consistently show a similar pattern. The results of the statistical
analysis on the mean speed indicates that the mean speed at
sites with PMS is significantly lower than mean speed at sites
without PMS (p<0.05).
Table 9
Comparison of mean speed at locations without and with PMS
Location
Without PMS (km/h)
With PMS (km/h)
Segamat
81.3
78.1
Tampin
73.3
70.5
K. Selangor
92.0
86.6
T. Malim
85.7
83.7
All locations
83.2
79.8
Evaluation of the result shows that PMS do have a positive
impact on road users with respect to speed behaviour. PMS seem
to influence road users into travelling at a lower speed when
approaching a PMS.
4.1.3.3 Compliance to speed limit
The result of speed compliance evaluation shows that 46.2% of
road users exceeded the speed limit during the Ops when the
speed limit was reduced to 80 km/h. Whereas 25.8% of the road
users travelled over the speed limit after the Ops when the speed
limit is changed back to the default speed of 90 km/h (refer Table
D1.2 in Appendix D).
30
Figure 10 Speed behaviour during and after the Ops
Kuala Selangor recorded the highest percentage of road
users travelling above the speed limit. This may be due to the
difference in road geometry between Kuala Selangor and the
other locations. The Kuala Selangor road is a four-lane dual
carriageway road while roads in other locations are two-lane
single carriageway roads. The road geometric properties of Kuala
Selangor with its multi lanes encourage speeding and provides
extra room for over taking. On the other hand, Tampin shows the
lowest percentage of road users who exceeded the speed limit.
This may be due to Tampin’s narrower road geometry.
4.1.4 Summary
The presence of PMS does give a positive effect to road users’
travelling speed. Result shows that sites with the presence of
police monitoring recorded a significantly lower speed profile
compared to sites without. This positive finding can be used by
enforcement authorities to plan necessary strategies in an effort
to improve road safety.
31
Despite the reduction in speed during the Ops, road users were
still driving above the speed limit.
It can be concluded that Ops Raya 2011 is not fully effective in
changing the behaviour of road users into complying with the
lower speed limit during the Ops campaign. This can be seen
from the higher percentage of road users who exceeded the
speed limit during the Ops. Thus, stricter enforcement should
be exercised in order to curb road users from driving over the
speed limit, and the issuing of summonses might reduce the
percentage of users who go over speed limit.
4.2
Study on the Perception of Being
Caught Among Road Users
4.2.1 Introduction
In order to instill discipline among road users, various initiatives
and preventive measures with regard to the enforcement aspect
had been undertaken by the respective government agencies.
As a result, the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) and together with
the Road Transport Department (JPJ) and Land Public Transport
Commission (SPAD) had conducted an Integrated Safety Ops
to coincide with the Raya holiday season by combining several
enforcement programmes which included enforcement
operations along expressways, federal roads and state roads;
technical inspection of public vehicles in depots and bus
terminals throughout the Peninsular; reduction of ticket touts;
and prohibition of freight vehicles from using the federal road.
The focus of this study is on the enforcement aspect of the
authorities. The main purpose is to measure the effectiveness of
enforcement activities conducted by the authorities throughout
the duration of the Ops. For this study, it only focuses on road
users’ perception of the probability of being caught (POBC)
covering the two periods, during and after the implementation
of the integrated enforcement activities for the 2011 Aidilfitri
celebration.
32
4.2.2 Hypothesis
•
There was a difference in the mean scores of overall POBC
for traffic offences for three main periods (before, during and
after implementation of Ops Bersepadu Hari Raya Aidilfitri)
from the years 2008–2010.
•
There was a difference in the mean scores of overall POBC
for traffic offences for two main periods (during and after
implementation of Ops Bersepadu Hari Raya Aidilfitri) year
2011.
•
There was a difference in traffic enforcement visibility in road
users’ perception during and after the Ops enforcement
programme.
4.2.3 Findings
4.2.3.1 Mean scores of overall POBC from the years
2008–2010
In order to observe the pattern of the perception of being
caught, the collected data was categorised into three main time
periods, namely before the Ops, during the Ops and after the
Ops. The percentage of road users’ perception of being caught
was determined for each Ops period of the festive seasons.
Table 10 illustrates the summary of the percentage of road users’
perception of being caught according to Ops Raya period year
2008 until 2011. Before the Ops, the percentages of road users’
perception of being caught were very low for Ops Raya year
2008 and 2009 as compared to the other periods (during Ops
and after Ops). There were increments in road users’ perception
of being caught for both years (2008 and 2009); 42% and 48%,
respectively during the Ops. This might be due to road users’
awareness of the actual increase or the expectation of increased
enforcement.
Subsequently, the road users’ perception of being caught
diminished dramatically after the Ops Raya ended. In contrast
33
with the 2010 Ops Raya, the percentage of road users’ perception
of being caught before the Ops were the same as compared to
during Ops (52%). The percentages increased to 55% right after
the Ops Raya ended. For the 2011 Ops Raya, road users perceived
that the probability of being caught for traffic offences was
somewhat similar to that of during and after the implementation
of the Ops with a variance of 2% only.
Table 10 Analysis in road users’ perception of being caught for 2008 until 2011 festival periods
Period
Ops Raya
2008
2009
2010
2011
Before Ops
35.4%
41.0%
51.7%
-
During Ops
42.3%
48.0%
52.0%
48.0%
After Ops
37.2%
46.0%
55.3%
46.0%
The percentage collected was from 0 to 100% whereby 0% indicates perception of not being
caught at all while a 100% would indicate a sure perception of being caught.
The percentages of road users’ perception level of being caught were compared before, during
and after the launch of the Ops.
An ANOVA test in Table 11 reveals that there were statistically
significant differences in the mean scores of the overall POBC
for traffic offences for three main periods (Ops Raya year 2008
and 2009). Road users’ overall POBC scores during Ops were
higher than before and after the Ops for Ops Raya year 2008 and
2009. Thus, the road users’ overall POBC for traffic offences were
affected by the implementation of Ops Raya.
However, there was no significant difference in the mean scores
of overall POBC for traffic offences for three main periods in Ops
Raya 2010. This may due to the current approaches or strategies
undertaken by enforcer throughout the last 22 Ops Raya are
almost similar and lacking the element of surprise. Furthermore,
the public perceived that Ops Raya were being conducted and
given emphasis for a period of 15 days during the festive seasons.
34
Table 11 Comparison of road users’ perception of being caught between Ops for each Hari
Raya (Year 2008–2010)
Mean
SD
Raya 2010
ANOVA Test
F(2,1193) = 1.686, p=.186
Before Ops
5.1462
2.8539
During Ops
5.2030
2.9133
After Ops
5.5033
3.0774
Before Ops
4.0502
2.5716
During Ops
4.7576
2.7034
After Ops
4.5710
2.5921
Raya 2009
F(2,5284) = 33.773, p=.0001
Raya 2008
F(2,5397) = 42.002, p=.0001
Before Ops
3.5592
2.45844
During Ops
4.2691
2.47047
After Ops
3.7540
2.26968
4.2.3.2 Mean scores of overall POBC for traffic offences for
two main periods during and after Ops Raya 2011
The traffic offences data was obtained by asking the respondents
to rank the probability of being caught for 12 traffic offences
based on their experience and knowledge (refer to Figure E2.1
in Appendix E). They are: a) speeding, b) beating traffic lights, c)
queue-jumping, d) overtaking at a double line, e) illegal use of the
emergency lane, f ) dangerously cutting into traffic, g) failure to
use the front seatbelt while driving, h) failure to use rear seatbelt,
i) failure to use a crash helmet while riding, j) overloading, k)
using the mobile phone while driving, and i) tailgating.
Despite the fact that road users’ perception of being caught for
committing specific traffic offences increased throughout the
Ops periods, the road users felt that the probability of being
caught was higher for some offences than for others. Here they
are in a descending order: the failure to use a crash helmet while
riding, speeding, using mobile phone while driving, beating
traffic lights and overloading were perceived as posing the five
highest probability of being caught.
35
Meanwhile, the failure to use the rear seatbelt, tailgating and
dangerously cutting into traffic were perceived as posing the
lowest probability of being caught. The failure to abide by rear
seatbelt use regulations is in line with its negative perception on
the probability of being caught for that particular offense. This
is probably due to the lack of emphasis on the enforcement for
that particular offense despite the fact that mandatory seatbelt
use for rear passengers had taken effect since 1st January 2009.
Table 12 Comparison of road users’ perception of being caught between Ops for 2011
Hari Raya
Mean
SD
Raya 2011
Independent-samples t-test
t (798) = 1.083 , p = .279
During Ops
4.80
2.623
After Ops
4.60
1.638
The aim is to compare the mean scores of road users’ overall
POBC for traffic offences. An independent-samples t-test was
conducted to compare the mean scores of road users’ overall
POBC for Ops Hari Raya periods. Based on Table 12, it can be seen
that there is no significant difference in scores for during Ops (M
= 4.80, SD = 2.623) and after Ops, M = 4.60, SD = 2.638; t (798) =
1.083, p = .279. The magnitude of the differences in the means
(mean difference = .201, 95% CI: -.164 to .566) is very small (eta
squared = 0.001).
4.2.3.3 Traffic enforcement visibility to road users’
perception during and after the Ops enforcement
programme
From the results, it was found out that a majority of the respondents
stated that there was medium visibility of enforcement activities
during the Ops. Based on Figure 11, findings revealed that a
majority of respondents perceived that there was also medium
visibility of enforcement activities along the expressways and
federal roads; 51.0% and 45%, respectively during the Ops.
36
Figure 11 Percentage of visibility of traffic enforcement at all locations
However after the Ops Raya, there was a decrease in visibility
(45%) to the expressway users while the federal road users
perceived higher visibility (53%). Throughout the Ops Raya,
respondents perceived that visibility of enforcement activities
were low especially along the federal roads with 36% and 23%
respectively; expressways 38% and 18%.
A Mann-Whitney test was performed to test the difference in the
enforcement visibility scores for Ops Hari Raya Aidilfitri periods.
The test revealed that the enforcement visibility scores during
the Ops (Md = 6.0, n = 400) were significantly higher than after
the Ops (Md = 5.0, n = 400), U = 66655.5, z = -4.135, p = 0.00, r
= - 0.15.
4.2.4 Summary
There was a significant difference in the mean scores of the
overall POBC for traffic offences for three main periods, before,
during and after implementation of the Ops Bersepadu Hari Raya
Aidilfitri from the years 2008–2009.
There was no significant difference in the mean scores of the
overall POBC for traffic offences for three main periods, before,
during and after implementation of the Ops Bersepadu Hari Raya
Aidilfitri year 2010.
37
There was a significant difference in the mean scores of the
overall POBC for traffic offences for two main periods, during and
after implementation of Ops Bersepadu Hari Raya Aidilfitri year
2011.
The traffic enforcement visibility in road users’ perception during
and after the Ops enforcement programme, was medium.
4.3
Perception of Being Caught Among Bus
Drivers
4.3.1 Introduction
A common practice during festival periods in Malaysia is that
the enforcement agencies would conduct traffic enforcement
activities which are known as the Ops in an attempt to reduce
traffic violations and crashes. For the Hari Raya Aidilfitri of 2011,
JPJ and SPAD have conducted enforcement operations on
public transportations in depots and bus terminals nationwide.
In general, the respective enforcement agencies implemented
three methods of enforcement which are: i) profile of bus drivers
and vehicles – at the 34 major bus terminals nationwide; ii)
identify accident prone areas, 24 hours patrolling and static and
visible enforcement; and iii) the prohibition of freight vehicles
from using the roads. These programmes are conducted as
one of the efforts to control and reduce the rate of crashes and
fatalities on the roads reported every year.
This study focuses on the perceived risk of detection for bus
drivers during normal days and during the implementation of
the Ops. In order to gain an insight into the public view on the
effectiveness of these approaches, bus drivers’ perception of
being caught for committing traffic violations has to be evaluated.
Basically, an increase or decrease in their perception will gauge
the efficiency of the methods. In addition, the bus drivers’
perception towards the effectiveness of traffic enforcement
methods throughout the Ops Bersepadu was measured.
38
4.3.2 Hypothesis
•
There is a difference in the mean scores of the overall POBC
for traffic offences for the two periods (during Ops Raya and
non-festive days).
•
There is a difference in current enforcement methods in mean
scores of overall POBC for traffic offences during Ops Raya.
4.3.3 Findings
4.3.3.1 Mean scores of overall POBC for traffic offences for
two main periods (festival period and non-festival
days)
In order to observe the pattern of perception of being caught
among the bus drivers, the collected data was categorised into
two main periods, namely the festival periods and non-festival
days. The percentage of bus drivers’ perception of being caught
was determined for each period.
Table 13 shows the analysis in bus drivers’ overall perception of
being caught for two main periods. From the findings, it can be
seen that bus drivers perceive a higher risk of detection during
festival periods (70%) as compared to non-festival days if violating
traffic rules (56%).
Mann-Whitney analysis was carried out to compare the mean
score of bus drivers’ overall POBC for traffic offences for the two
main periods. It can be observed that the increase in mean scores
of overall POBC between the two main periods (festival periods
and non-festive days) was significant (p<0.05) as shown in Table
14. The value of the mean ranking indicates that bus drivers’
perceive higher mean scores POBC during festival period (360.33)
as compared to non-festival days (260.67).
39
Table 13 Analysis in bus drivers’ overall perception of being caught for two
main periods
Period
Percentage (%)
Festival period
69.5
Non-festival days
55.7
Table 14 Comparison of bus drivers’ perception of being caught for two main
periods
Period
Mean scores
POBC
Mean rank
p-value
Festival period
360.33
0.000
Non-festival days
260.67
4.3.3.2 Effectiveness of traffic enforcement methods
conducted by respective enforcement agencies
Table 15 illustrates the mean scores of bus drivers’ perception on
the effectiveness of traffic enforcement methods conducted by
the respective enforcement agencies which included the Royal
Malaysia Police (PDRM), Road Transport Department (JPJ) and
Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD).
The bus drivers perceive that the enforcement methods
conducted by JPJ were more effective (7.53) as compared to
those conducted by other enforcement agencies (PDRM: 6.85,
SPAD: 5.45). Bus drivers perceive that bus inspections in depots
and bus terminals (7.91), enforcers patrolling in bus terminals/
crash-prone areas (7.75) and placing enforcers in bus terminal
areas (7.72) are the most effective traffic enforcement methods
conducted by JPJ.
Referring to Table 16, a Kruskal-Wallis analysis indicates there is
a significant difference between current enforcement methods
and mean scores of overall POBC for traffic offences during
Ops Raya (p<0.05). It can also be seen that JPJ has the highest
mean rank of 547.21, which can be interpreted that bus drivers
perceive that enforcement methods conducted by JPJ are the
most effective.
40
Table 15 Effectiveness of traffic enforcement methods conducted by respective agencies
Enforcement
agencies
PDRM
JPJ
SPAD
Methods
Mean
Overall mean
scores
Enforcers in observation towers
6.60
6.85
Enforcement patrols in crash-prone areas
7.82
Placing enforcers in crash-prone areas
7.18
Roadblocks
5.39
Enforcement cameras in crash and dangerous areas
7.28
Plain-clothes (undercover) enforcers on public transport
6.76
Enforcement patrols in bus terminal /crash-prone areas
7.75
Placing enforcers in bus terminal areas
7.72
Bus inspections in depot and bus terminal
7.91
Enforcer patrols in bus terminal /crash-prone areas
5.44
Placing enforcers in bus terminal areas
5.46
Table 16 Comparison of mean scores POBC between the respective
enforcement methods
Enforcement agencies
Mean rank
p-value
PDRM
459.86
0.000
JPJ
547.21
-
SPAD
389.43
-
4.3.4 Summary
There is a significant difference in the mean scores of the overall
POBC for traffic offences for the two periods (during Ops Raya
and non-festive days). There is a significant difference in the
current enforcement methods in the mean scores of overall
POBC for traffic offences during Ops Raya.
41
7.53
5.45
4.4
Compliancy with Helmet Use
4.4.1 Introduction
While disagreements exist on the legislative approach, helmet
use is proven to help reduce the severity of head injuries and
also in lowering the rate of of motorcyclist fatalities (Sosin et al.
1992; Kraus et al. 1994; Auman et al. 2002). The use of helmets
has resulted in the reduction of between 20%–45% of fatal and
serious injuries among users of motorised two-wheelers in Italy
and the United States (World Health Organization [WHO] 2004).
Helmet use legislation has been proven to increase the rate
of helmet use and subsequently reduce the rates of head
injury-associated deaths. La Torrel et al. (2007) investigated the
characteristics of head injuries among scooter riders before
and after the implementation of the helmet use law in Italy and
concluded that the introduction of the law has increased the use
of helmet and reduced the rate of head trauma among scooter
riders. Within three years of its implementation in 1999, the
helmet law in Italy has resulted in 76% increase of helmet use
(WHO 2004). Similar findings on the effectiveness of helmet use
law in reducing the injuries sustained by motorcyclists were also
reported in Taiwan (Chang 2005).
In the US, Auman et al. (2002) found out that the motorcyclist
fatality rate in Maryland has dropped to 4.5 per 10,000 registered
motorcycles after the implementation of helmet use law as
compared to 10.3 before it despite minimal change in the
number of registered motorcycles. The researchers also found out
that motorcyclists wearing helmets had a lower risk of traumatic
brain injuries than those not wearing helmets. WHO reported
that mandatory helmet law in the US has reduced the number of
injuries sustained by motorcyclists by 20–30% (WHO 2004).
In Malaysia, head injury is still the leading cause of motorcyclist
fatalities; killing more than 2,000 motorcycle riders annually
for the past six years (PDRM 2010). In 2004, WHO reported that
the implementation of helmet law in Malaysia has reduced
42
motorcyclist fatalities by 30%. However, a recent trend shows
an increase in head injury-associated deaths among Malaysian
motorcyclists. Studies on the compliance rate of helmet law
have found a gap in the rate of helmet usage between urban
and rural areas. For example, Kulantayan et al. (2001) reported
that the compliance rate in rural areas was as low as 30%.
This research is aimed at studying the effectiveness of
enforcement activities in increasing the rate of helmet use among
Malaysian motorcyclists. It was conducted in conjunction with
the commencement of the Ops by the police force during the
2011 Hari Raya festive season. The study also looked at the status
of proper helmet use and the demographic of motorcyclists.
Data collection was conducted along Kajang–Semenyih route
(F0001) and Kuala Selangor–Sabak Bernam route (F0054). These
two sites were both affected by the Ops.
4.4.2 Hypothesis
•
There is a significant increase in helmet use on federal roads
during Ops.
•
There is a significant change in the type of helmet worn on
federal roads during Ops.
4.4.3 Findings
4.4.3.1 Helmet use
A total of 1,200 motorcyclists were observed during the study
period. In F0001, a 22% increase (p < 0.01) in helmet use was
observed during the Ops. Compliance rate was 96.3% during
the Ops, as compared to 74.3% before the Ops. In F0054, no
significant change was found in the use of helmet during the
period of the Ops. The compliance rate increased by only 0.3%
during the Ops at this location. This however was owed to the
fact that the compliance rate was already high (87.7%) before
the Ops.
43
4.4.3.2 Type of helmet use
The most widely used motorcycle safety helmet in Malaysia is
the open-face type. However, the illegal half-shell helmets are
still available and used by motorcyclists. In F0001, more than 85%
motorcyclists were observed to be using the open-faced helmet
before and during the Ops. However the percentage of those
who use open-faced helmets decreased by 3.7% from 90% before
the Ops to 86.3% during the Ops. The use of half-shell helmets
was rather frequent in F0054 before the Ops whereby 26.6% of
motorcyclists were observed to be wearing them. However this
figure dropped to 13.5% during the Ops.
4.4.4 Summary
Helmet use during the Ops Raya was higher when compared to
before the Ops. The presence of enforcement has an effect on
the rate of helmet use even though summonses were not issued.
However this does not affect the type of helmet being used.
4.5
Seatbelt Use Among Vehicle Occupants
4.5.1 Introduction
The use of seatbelts is the cheapest and the most effective way
to reduce road crash fatalities for car drivers and passengers and
the reduction rate can reach between 40–50% (Elvik and Vaa
2004). It can also reduce injury severity in road vehicle accidents
(Elvik and Vaa 2004; Evans 1986; IRTAD 1995; Petridou et al. 1998).
With regard to drivers and passengers’ safety, seatbelt use is one
of the interventions initiated by the government to reduce death
and severe injury due to road traffic accidents. Many countries
have put into place legislations that require vehicle occupants
to use the safety belt. In Malaysia, it has been made compulsory
for front occupants of a motor vehicle to use the safety belt
from 1 April 1979 (Road Transport Ordinance 1958). Following
this, the mandatory seatbelt use of rear seatbelts took effect on
44
1 January 2009 (Road Traffic Act 1987), which is 30 years after the
law for the front occupants was enforced.
Despite the proven effectiveness of seatbelt use, many passengers
fail to use them. In 1993, as reported by Hauswald (1997), the rate
of use among drivers in Kuala Lumpur was only 40%. After many
years since the introduction of the law for front occupants in 1979,
the rate has increased to 76.6% in 2003 and further improved
in the year 2010 as shown in Figure 12. Whereas for seatbelt
use among rear passengers, before the law took effect no rear
passenger was observed to be using the seatbelt (Kulanthayan
et al. 2004). Meanwhile, findings of observations conducted by
MIROS show that there is consistency on the compliance rate for
drivers and front occupants from December 2008 until June 2010
as presented in Figure 12 below. In contrast, the compliance rate
of rear passengers had continuously decreased from March 2009
to June 2010.
Figure 12 Nationwide seatbelt use rate (Overall) December 2008–June 2010
Although legislation and regulations are important, however
they are not sufficient in maximising seatbelt use and must
be accompanied by sustained education and enforcement
activities. William and Well (2004) in their review concluded
that highly publicised enforcement programmes have been
proven as a worthy technique for increasing seatbelt use. This is
proven through a study conducted by a team from MIROS on
45
the effectiveness of the enhanced enforcement initiatives (Ops
Bersepadu) in 2009. They found out that after two weeks, the Ops
was significantly effective in increasing seatbelt use among front
passengers and drivers with the RR (95% CI) of 1.17 (1.14, 1.20)
and 1.12 (1.10, 1.13) respectively. However, after six months of
the Ops, the compliance rate for both types of vehicle occupants
dropped (Norlen et al. 2010).
The approaches of the current Ops focuses more on educating
road users instead of strengthening the enforcement against
traffic offences such as speeding, red light running, dangerous
overtaking, driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs,
failure to use the seatbelt as well as a helmet. In contrast to the
previous Ops, the strategy of the current Ops concentrates more
on patrolling and displaying of static canopies instead of roadside
enforcement or roadblocks. The new strategies adopted for the
current Ops warrant a special evaluation on its effectiveness. Thus,
the objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of the
current Ops specifically by looking at the seatbelt use rate as one
of the key indicators for its effectiveness. In order to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Ops, roadside observation was undertaken
in three phases, namely before Ops (15 August 2011–22 August
2011), during the Ops (23 August 2011–6 September 2011) and
after the Ops (7 September 2011–13 September 2011).
4.5.2 Hypothesis
The current Ops Raya 2011 initiative is effective in increasing
seatbelt use among vehicle occupants in Malaysia.
46
4.5.3 Findings
4.5.3.1 Pattern of overall seatbelt use before, during and
after the Ops
Figure 13 shows the result of overall seatbelt use rate for
drivers, front passengers and rear passengers among sites with
designated enforcement activities. The percentage of seatbelt
use for drivers decreased from 87.7% to 85.2% and 87.3% for
periods before, during and after Ops respectively. Similarly, front
passengers percentage of seatbelt use decreased from 82.6%
to 73.3% and 76.8% for period before, during and after the Ops
respectively. Meanwhile, rear passengers also show similar pattern
of seatbelt use as drivers and front passengers. The seatbelt use
rate decreased from 12.2% to 9.2% and 6.3% during and after the
Ops respectively. These decrease in seatbelt use rates during and
after the Ops for drivers, front passengers and rear passengers
however are not statistically significant as indicated by the
Relative Risk (95% CI) as shown in Table 17.
Figure 13 Overall seatbelt use rate among vehicle occupants by the period of
the Ops at the sites with enforcement activities
47
Table 17 Likelihood of vehicle occupant seatbelt use during and after as compared to before the Ops
Seatbelt use
Wearing
status
Before Ops
During Ops
N
N
After Ops
RRa(95% CI)
N
RRa(95% CI)
0.97b
(0.95,1.00)
1760
1.00b
(0.97,1.02)
DRIVER
Overall
Belted
1588
1574
Nonexpressways
Unbelted
223
274
Belted
387
445
Expressways
Unbelted
54
70
Belted
1201
1129
Unbelted
169
204
257
0.98
(0.94,1.03)
b
394
0.92
(0.87,0.98)
92
0.97
(0.94,1.00)
b
1366
1.02b
(0.99,1.05)
165
FRONT PASSENGER
Overall
Belted
1349
1222
Nonexpressways
Unbelted
285
446
Belted
349
338
Expressways
Unbelted
61
129
Belted
1000
884
Unbelted
224
317
0.89
(0.86,0.92)
1411
0.93
(0.90,0.96)
427
0.85
(0.79,0.91)
304
0.90
(0.86,0.94)
1107
0.83
(0.77,0.90)
125
0.96b
(0.93,1.00)
302
REAR PASSENGER
Overall
Belted
303
231
Nonexpressways
Unbelted
2176
2277
Belted
96
47
Expressways
Unbelted
566
766
Belted
207
184
1610
1511
Unbelted
Relative risk of 2 X 2 table analyses, Not significant
a
b
48
0.75
(0.64,0.89)
172
0.51
(0.43,0.61)
2577
0.40(0.29,0.56)
57
0.50
(0.37,0.68)
731
0.95b
(0.79,1.15)
115
1846
0.51
(0.41,0.64)
4.5.3.2 Pattern of seatbelt use stratified by site of
observation (comparing sites designated for
enforcement activities and without enforcement
activities)
Drivers were observed to display consistently higher seatbelt
use rates at the designated sites with enforcement activities
(87.8%, 86.4%, and 81.1%) as compared to sites without (82.3%,
79.9%, and 77.7%) before, during and after the Ops respectively
(refer to Table F1.1 in Appendix F). The pattern of seatbelt use
rate for before and during the Ops is statistically significant as
indicated by the odd ratio (OR) (95% CI) of 1.54 (1.05, 2.27) and
1.60 (1.13, 2.28) respectively. However, the result is not statistically
significant for after the Ops; with an odd ratio of (95% CI) 1.23
(0.89, 1.69) (refer to Table F1.1 in Appendix F).
Similarly, front passengers were also observed to display a higher
seatbelt use rate at the designated sites with enforcement
activities (85.1, 72.4, and 70.9%) as compared to sites without
enforcement activities (69.5, 69.8 and 66.5%) before, during and
after the Ops respectively as shown in Table F1.2 in Appendix
F. The results are statistically significant for before and after the
Ops with OR (95% CI) of 2.52 (1.75, 3.63) and 1.23 (0.92, 1.65)
respectively. The data for during the Ops is not statistically
significant with an OR (95% CI) of 1.14 (0.84, 1.53) (refer to Table
F1.2 in Appendix F).
As in the cases of drivers and front passengers, rear passengers
also show a similar pattern of seatbelt use status. Rear passengers
were observed to have a higher seatbelt use rate at the sites with
enforcement activities (14.5% and 7.2%) as compared to sites
without (7.9% and 5.2%) before and after the Ops respectively
(refer to Table F1.3 in Appendix F). The pattern was statistically
significant for before Ops with OR (95% CI) of 1.99 (1.34, 2.95).
Meanwhile, during the Ops, seatbelt use rate at sites without
enforcement activities were higher (8.6%) as compared to sites
with enforcement activities (6.3%). However, the pattern is not
statistically significant with an OR (95% CI) of 0.71 (0.48, 1.06)
(refer to Table F1.3 in Appendix F).
49
From the findings, it can be seen that the overall use rates for
drivers and front passengers are not much different from the most
recent use rates (June 2010). In contrast, rear passengers’ overall
use rate did not show any improvement from the previous year.
Findings also reveal that the seatbelt use rates for drivers, front
passengers and rear passengers are consistently higher before
the Ops as compared to during and after the Ops. This reflects
that the Ops is not effective in improving the seatbelt use rate
among vehicle occupants in Malaysia.
This trend maybe attributed to several reasons. One possible
reason is the approach taken during the Ops that primarily
focuses on road safety education to the public instead of
enforcement against traffic offences such as speeding, red light
running, dangerous overtaking, driving under the influence of
alcohol and drugs, failure to use the seatbelt as well as helmet.
Furthermore, to be effective the enforcement activities need to
be selective, highly visible and well publicised, conducted over
a sufficiently long period and repeated several times. William
and Well (2004) in their review concluded that highly publicised
enforcement programmes have proven to be an effective
technique for increasing seatbelt use. This is supported by
findings from a study conducted by Norlen et al. (2010), which
shows that as the enforcement activities increase, the compliance
rate of seatbelt use would also increase, and would decline when
the enforcement activities decrease over time.
Comparing sites with and without enforcement activities reveal
a significant difference throughout the Ops periods including
before the Ops period. This indicates that the difference in seatbelt
use among vehicle occupants between the two locations (with
and without enforcement) could not be associated with the
current Ops. The difference might be due to the long duration of
enforcement activities at both sites whereby road users at sites
with enforcement activities might already have higher POBC
level as compared to those at non-designated enforcement
routes. However, a more important observation is the reduction
trend in seatbelt use at both sites during and after the Ops
period as compared to before the Ops. This might be influenced
50
by the current Ops approach which focuses more on educating
people instead of enforcing the law. The strategy of patrolling
and displaying of static canopy instead of roadside enforcement
might have given a negative impact on road users’ overall
compliance rate. Thus, the seatbelt use rates at all sites, with or
without enforcement, showed a reduction.
4.5.4 Summary
The overall seatbelt use rates among drivers, front passengers
and rear passengers decreased during the Ops as compared to
before the Ops. However, the reduction in seatbelt use rate is not
statistically significant. In addition, seatbelt use rate among rear
passengers did not show any improvement from year 2010. The
findings concluded that the current Ops strategy is not effective
in increasing seatbelt use regardless of the type of occupants.
This might be due to the strategy of current Ops which did not
focus much on enforcement of seatbelt use among road users
in Malaysia.
4.6
Safety Level of Express Bus from
Passengers’ Perspective
4.6.1 Introduction
Express bus is one of the main modes of transport used during the
festive seasons. Accidents involving express buses were recorded
at 2,108 cases with 50 deaths in 2010 (MROADS 2011). Despite
the smaller number as compared to deaths of motorcyclists and
motorcar occupants, Malaysians generally have a bad perception
and low confidence in express buses in Malaysia. This is due to a
series of mishaps in the public transport sector including several
consecutive devastating express bus crashes in the last few years.
Attention and coverage by the mass media in exaggerating the
incidents involving buses in the last four years have also made
the perception even worse.
51
A study conducted at the South Integrated Terminal (TBS)
which covers passengers travelling from the south of Peninsular
Malaysia and 736 respondents were interviewed. Bus that was
travelling from south of Peninsular Malaysia was chosen due
to the high express bus crash rate recorded in 2010. The safety
level and performance of express buses were measured from the
passengers’ perspective as users are also affected by the drivers’
driving behaviour.
4.6.2 Hypothesis
The main objective of this study is to investigate the safety
performance of express bus operation. The hypotheses are
shown as follows.
•
There is no significant difference in the performance of
express buses between during and after the Ops in terms of
safety, comfort and punctuality.
•
There is no significant difference in drivers’ driving behaviour
between during and after the Ops with regard to emergency
braking, speeding, driving in emergency lane and red light
running.
4.6.3 Findings
Transnasional, KKKL express and Mayang Sari are the top three
bus operators preferred by passengers and used by most
respondents to travel from TBS. These three bus operators might
be chosen due to the high number of buses operated by their
respective operators. However, based on passengers’ preference
(refer to Table G1.1 in Appendix G), a majority of passengers
prefer to choose a particular bus operator because of comfort
(49.1%) followed by punctuality (16.6%), then by the choice of
available routes (13.1%). Therefore, it can be concluded that the
number of buses owned by the operators is not the main factor
in the public’s decision to choose any particular bus operator.
52
However, the number of buses operated by a bus operator is
the main influencing factor for passengers’ decision to travel by
bus. Table G1.2 in Appendix G shows the choice availability was
ranked as the main reason (31%) behind passenger’s travelled
choice. This is followed by comfort and convenient services
(29.8%) and time factor (10.7%).
Being asked to rate the importance of having safe, comfortable
and punctual journey, a majority of the express bus passengers
(95.5%) chose safety as their priority (refer to Figure G2.1 in
Appendix G). This preference was reflected (refer to Table G1.3 in
Appendix G) whereby a majority of them chose to travel during
the day (77.9%), by single deck buses (84.9%), prefer seats located
at the first tier if they have to travel on a double decker bus
(68.1%), to have seatbelt on their seat (56.5%) and travel on a bus
which is driven according to the speed limit (93.8%). However,
the fact that the preference for seatbelt is only average might be
due to the low level of awareness of safety measures in the event
of a crash.
4.6.3.1 Passengers’ perception on performance level
Table 18 shows the passengers’ perception of express bus
performance based on safety, comfort and punctuality. These
three factors were considered as the three most important
factors in terms of express bus performance. It can be seen that
from these three figures, there are differences in the performance
for the three factors during and after the Ops. The performance
levels of these three factors decreased after the Ops. However,
in terms of the overall performance, there is no significant
difference observed during and after the Ops as shown in Table
18. Therefore, there could be other factors that have been taken
into passenger’s consideration in rating overall express buses
performance beside of safety, comfort and punctuality.
53
Table 18 Passengers’ perception on express bus performance
Attribute
% Rating
Very bad
Bad
Satisfying
Good
Very good
During Ops
0.2
0.9
14.8
55.4
28.7
After Ops
0.0
1.4
20.9
55.1
22.6
During Ops
0
2.1
14.8
53,5
29.6
After Ops
0
3.1
20.8
51.9
24.2
During Ops
2.1
3.6
20.7
44.9
28.7
After Ops
1.4
4.4
26.6
45.1
22.5
During Ops
0.2
1.1
57.6
27.6
28.7
After Ops
0.3
0.7
58.6
22.6
22.6
Safety performance
Comfort performance
Punctuality performance
Overall performance
4.6.3.2 Passengers’ perception on driver’s driving
behaviour
Table 19 shows passengers’ perception on the four inappropriate
drivers’ driving behaviours observed during the study. It can
be seen that there is no difference in terms of passengers’
perception for emergency braking, driving in the emergency
lane and red light running frequency between during and after
the Ops period. In both Ops periods, drivers were mostly rated
as ‘never’ and ‘seldom’ performing emergency braking, ‘never’
driving in the emergency lane and ‘never’ jumping the red light.
There is a significant difference observed in the speeding
behaviour during and after the Ops as shown in Table 18. It was
assumed that speeding would be committed less frequently
during the Ops due to enforcement but the data shows
otherwise. The speeding frequency was higher during the Ops.
This could be due to the limitation of the study since the data
collected for the Ops period was from passengers arriving in the
Klang Valley whereby the main flow of traffic during the festive
seasons was going out of the Klang Valley.
54
Despite this result, there is no conclusive way to tell if
enforcement activities during the Ops managed to influence
what bus passengers think or observe from their drivers’
behaviour throughout their journey. This is because passengers’
perception is very subjective and could be influenced by many
factors. Furthermore, the effectiveness of a particular strategy
during the Ops could not be derived from this study since there
were many agencies like SPAD, AADK and JPJ conducting their
own enforcement activities during the Ops period.
Table 19 Passengers’ perception on driver’s behaviour
Attribute
% Rating
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
During Ops
69.8
23.9
5.5
0.9
After Ops
73.4
16.7
8.9
1
During Ops
53.7
30.1
14.2
2.1
After Ops
64.5
21.5
11.3
2.7
During Ops
96.1
2.7
0.7
0.5
After Ops
95.2
2.4
2.4
0
During Ops
96.1
2.7
0.7
0.5
After Ops
95.2
2.4
2.4
0
Frequency of emergency braking
Frequency of driver speeding
Frequency of bus driven in emergency lane
Frequency of red light running
Based on the survey, the respondents’ feedback indicated that
the safety performance level was recorded as being significantly
higher even though the drivers’ speeding frequency is also high
during the Ops, as compared to after the Ops. This condition could
be caused by factors that influence speed judgment like weather
condition, traffic density and construction activities during their
journey (Fildes, Fletcher and Corrigan 1987). However, this study
could not confirm this situation as this additional information
was not captured during the study. Furthermore, speeding is not
the only factor that contributes to the perception of safety. Other
factors like operator’s credibility, driver’s skill and environmental
factors are also taken into account in valuing safety.
55
4.6.4 Summary
Bus performance in terms of their safety level, comfort level,
punctuality and overall services were rated as good by passengers.
These performances were reported to be better during the Ops
as compared to after the Ops except for the overall services
whereby the performance does not differ. Bus passengers have
chosen safety as their main priority when choosing bus service
when they were asked to compare safety with comfort and
punctuality. A majority of them perceived that the bus driver of
their trip never exhibited inappropriate driving behaviours like
speeding, harsh braking, abusing the emergency lane and red
light running during and after the Ops period. However, the
passengers perceived that the frequency of speeding was higher
during the Ops.
4.7
Overtaking
4.7.1 Introduction
Overtaking is one of the risky behaviours which could lead
to severe impact if the overtaking vehicle collides with the
oncoming traffic especially if both vehicles are travelling at high
speed. In Malaysia in the year 2010, head-on collisions made
up 17% of the overall fatal accidents. Head-on collisions are
mainly caused by inappropriate overtaking especially on a single
carriageway road. The effects of enforcement activities on the
number of illegally-overtaking vehicles could be determined by
comparing the number of illegally-overtaking vehicles during
and after the period of Ops Raya 2011.
The study was conducted at five locations in Perak and Selangor.
At each location the data was collected at roads with a double
line marking which prohibits road users from overtaking. For
each observation session, data collection was collected for three
hours. All locations were single carriageway roads with one lane
in each direction.
56
Table 20 Study locations for illegal overtaking
Selangor
Perak
Jalan Klang Salak Tinggi (B0018)
Jalan Hutan Melintang–Teluk Intan (F0005)
Jalan Kuang Matang Pagar (F0054)
Jalan Setiawan–Teluk Intan (F0005)
Jalan Rawang Kuala Kubu Bharu (F0001)
4.7.2 Hypothesis
The Ops is effective in reducing the number of illegallyovertaking vehicles in Malaysia.
4.7.3 Findings
The traffic volume count shows that the total volume for three
hours at all five locations are 17,361 vehicles during the Ops
period. The total volumes during the same duration at the same
locations are 16,294 vehicles after the Ops Raya 2011 period.
The traffic compositions at all sites were almost similar. Cars are
the majority at all sites which accounted for 52.3% of the overall
traffic volume during the Ops Raya 2011 period and 51.2% after
the Ops Raya 2011 period. The composition of vans and buses
during the 2011 Ops Raya were almost the same; 15% for each
vehicle type. The composition of motorcycles was 14.7% of the
overall traffic during the 2011 Ops Raya period. The volume of
buses at all study locations was less than 1% for both during and
after the Ops Raya 2011 period.
The percentage of illegally-overtaking vehicles at all study
locations was 3.7% (641) during the 2011 Ops Raya. After the 2011
Ops Raya period the figure of illegally-overtaking vehicles was
3.6% at the same study locations. From the total of 641 illegallyovertaking vehicles during the Ops, passenger cars (64%) were
the most frequent vehicle observed performing illegal overtaking
and this was followed by vans (16%) and motorcycles (11%). The
composition of illegally-overtaking vehicles by vehicle type after
Ops Raya 2011 period was almost similar with the Ops period. A
simple Chi-square analysis shows the reduction in the number
of illegal overtaking in relation with the total number of vehicles
during and after the Ops is not statistically significant (p>0.05).
57
Table 21 Total volume and illegal overtaking during and after Ops Raya 2011
Period
During
Total volume
Total illegal
overtaking
After
Total volume
Total illegal
overtaking
Car
Van/
MPV
Lorry
Bus
Motorcycle
Total
9119
2498
2551
128
3065
17361
410
101
55
1
74
641
8660
2353
2586
124
3201
16924
379
98
40
0
95
612
4.7.4 Summary
In general, there is no effect to the number of illegally-overtaking
vehicles in relation to the enforcement activities during these
Ops periods. The study shows that illegal overtaking among
road users is rather infrequent as compared to the total volume,
however this issue must not be neglected because the outcomes
of crashes caused by reckless overtaking are very severe.
5.0 Conclusion
From the findings from all the studies conducted on Ops Raya
2011, it could generally be concluded that effective and focused
enforcement activities showed good results especially for POBC
among road users and bus drivers. Meanwhile, enforcement
activities on other issues should be improved in the future to
further reduce the number of crashes and fatalities in the country.
Conclusions from each study is summarised as follows.
5.1 Ops Raya 2011 did not decrease nor increase the total
number of fatalities and motorcycle fatalities during Ops
Raya and Ops CNY 2009, 2010 and 2011 except for total
fatalities during the Ops CNY in 2010 and 2011. The Ops
Raya 2011 recorded a higher number of total accidents as
compared to the two previous Ops Raya and the normal
58
days of 2011. This shows that the number of total accidents
towards the end of 2011 was showing an upward trend. A
similar trend could be observed for the overall fatalities and
also motorcycle fatalities. Despite the similar effort towards
both Ops CNY and Raya, the figure during Ops Raya is very
much higher.
5.2 From the traffic volume analysis it can be concluded that
there is an increase in the traffic volume during the Ops
period as compared to before Ops period for the expressway.
The number of crashes shows that there is no significant
change for the same Ops period for the expressway. The
decreasing trend for the number of crashes during the
Ops period as compared to before the Ops period for the
expressway may be due to the significant increase in the
number of traffic volume on the expressway.
5.3 The number of motorcycle fatalities and total fatalities during
the Ops 2011 recorded a new high. The findings revealed
that motorcyclists were at a slightly higher risk during
Ops Raya 2011 than normal day period. With reference to
the 2009 Ops Raya, the relative risk of motorcyclists being
involved in fatal accidents is higher. A similar trend for the
relative risk of motorcycle fatalities was observed for Ops
CNY.
5.4 There is an increase in road safety information for road
users during the Ops period. The road users agreed and
felt that there was a need to be safe on the road (affective).
The road users also admitted that they changed their
behaviour (conative) during the Ops period. In terms of
the cognitive aspect, road users agreed that road safety
information received during the Ops period has increased
their knowledge on road safety. This shows that road users
felt the importance of road safety messages during the Ops
Hari Raya.
5.5 The presence of PMS gives a positive effect to the road
users’ travelling speed. Result shows that the sites with
59
the presence of police monitoring recorded a significantly
lower speed profile as compared to sites without them.
This positive finding can be used by the authorities to plan
necessary strategies to improve road safety.
The enforcement activities during the Ops had a significant
effect in terms of mean speed reduction during the Ops.
Road users tend to increase their travel speed after the
Ops period is over. However it can be concluded that in
overall, Ops 2011 is not fully effective in advocating road
users to comply with the lower speed limit during the Ops
campaign. This can be seen from the operating speed
which was higher than the speed limit (80 km/h) at all
locations during the Ops. The percentage of over speeding
also shows almost half of the road users speed during
Ops. However, it is clear that the speed during the Ops is
significantly lower as compared to the speed after the Ops.
One of the reasons may be due to the higher number of
vehicles travelling on the road during the Ops.
5.6 The Ops Raya conducted in year 2011 did not significantly
increase the overall road users’ perception of probability of
being caught. This is in line with the statistics for fatalities
reported by PDRM, which recorded the second highest
number of fatalities since the Ops were first conducted in
this country. Enforcement strategies used by the PDRM for
this year’s Ops did not carry serious weight among road
users. There was a drop in the number of roadblocks in place
and they were more focused on omnipresence. Although
the implementation of Ops Raya 2011 is considered a
failure in achieving its goals in reducing the number of
fatalities and crashes during its duration, the operation is
still relevant and its efforts should be continued but with
new approaches in order to change the perception of road
users towards compliance to rules and regulations.
The Ops conducted in 2010 and 2011 has no significant
effect in increasing the overall road users’ perception of
probability of being caught for committing traffic offences.
Road users are of the opinion that despite committing traffic
60
offences, their probability of being fined by the authorities
is low. However, the Ops Enforcement programmes
conducted in 2008 and 2009 was found to be effective in
increasing overall road users’ perception of probability of
being caught for committing traffic offences.
5.7 It was found out that enforcement during the festival
period (Ops Raya) was effective in increasing the overall bus
drivers’ POBC for traffic offences. There is a significant effect
of the current enforcement methods during Ops Raya in
increasing the overall bus drivers’ POBC for traffic offences.
This positive finding should be taken by the respective
enforcement agencies and shall be implemented
throughout the year instead of seasonal enforcement.
5.8 In general, the results show that the Ops had effectively
increased the percentage of helmet use among
motorcyclists. An immediate increase of 22% (p < 0.01) from
the initial 74.3% was observed along the Kajang–Semenyih
(F0001) route during the Ops. Observations along the Kuala
Selangor–Sabak Bernam route (F0054) have also shown
positive improvement in the rate of helmet use. Despite
the positive effects of the Ops, there was however a striking
difference between the percentages of increase in helmet
use at the selected observation sites. The helmet use rate
increased by only 0.3% on F0054 as compared to 22% on
F0001. This could be due to the differences in length and
location of the routes. Compared to the Kajang–Semenyih
route, the Kuala Selangor–Sabak Bernam route is about
80 km longer. Thus the Ops programme should strategise
the enforcement methods based on the location, length
and type of selected enforcement sites to increase its
effectiveness on helmet use.
5.9 Seatbelt use rate among rear passengers did not show any
improvement from the previous year. In this Ops, the overall
seatbelt use rate among drivers, front passengers and rear
passengers decreased during the Ops as compared to
before the Ops. For drivers, the decrease is from 87.7% to
85.2%, for front passengers it decreased from 82.6% to 73.3%
61
while seatbelt use rate among rear passengers decreased
from 12.2% to 9.2%. In addition, seatbelt use rate among
rear passengers did not show any improvement from year
2010 (9.7%). The findings concluded that regardless of the
type of occupants, the current Ops strategy did not give
positive impacts on changing car occupants’ behaviour
towards the use of the seatbelt. This might be due to the
strategy of the current Ops which does not focus too much
on the enforcement of seatbelt use among road users in
Malaysia.
5.10 Bus performance in terms of the safety level, comfort level,
punctuality and overall services were rated as good by
passengers. These performances were reported as better
during the Ops as compared to after the Ops except for the
overall services whereby the performance did not seem
to differ. Bus drivers were also observed to never exhibit
inappropriate driving behaviours such as speeding, harsh
braking, abusing the emergency lane and red light running
during and after Ops. However, the frequency of speeding
was higher during the Ops.
Despite this result, there is no conclusive way to tell if
enforcement activities during Ops gave any influence to
what bus passengers think or observe from the bus drivers’
behaviour throughout their journeys. The effectiveness of
Ops could not be derived from this study since there were
many enforcement activities conducted by agencies like
SPAD, AADK and JPJ after the Ops period. Further study
needs to be conducted during normal day operation
to determine the effectiveness of the specific Ops
identification carried out by any specific agency.
5.11 The study concluded that the Ops has no effect on the
number of vehicles that overtake illegally at a double line.
Efforts towards lowering the number of overtaking vehicles
are essential especially at double lines because reckless
overtaking will lead to head-on collisions which will end up
in severe injuries to road users.
62
References
Auman, KM, Kufera, JA, Ballesteros, MF, Smialek, JE & Dischinger,
PC (2002), AutOPSy study of motorcyclist fatalities: the effect
of the 1992 Maryland motorcycle helmet use law, American
Journal of Public Health, 92 (8): 1352–1355.
Chang, L-Y (2005), Empirical analysis of the effectiveness of
mandated motorcycle helmet use in Taiwan, Journal of the
Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 6, 3629–3644.
Elvik, R & Vaa, T (2004), The handbook of road safety measures,
Elsevier Ltd, Oxford.
Evans, L (1986), The effectiveness of safety belts in preventing
fatalities, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18: 229–241.
Fildes, BN, Fletcher, MR & Corrigan, JMcM (1987), Speed perception
1: drivers’ judgment of safety and speed on urban and rural
straight roads, Federal Office of Road Safety, Canberra,
Australia.
Hauswald, M (1997), Seatbelt use in developing country: convert
non-compliance with a primary enforcement law in Malaysia,
Accident Analysis and Prevention Journal, 29: 695–697.
IRTAD, International Road Traffic and Accident Database (1995).
The availability of seatbelt wearing data in OECD member
countries, Accessed on 22 July 2011, from http://www.oecd.
org/dataoecd/24/51/2104536.pdf.
Kulanthayan, S, Law, TH, Raha, AR & Radin Umar, RS (2004),
Seatbelt use among car users in Malaysia, IATSS Research, 28:
19–25.
63
Kulanthayan, S, Radin Umar, RS, Hariza, HA & Nasir, MT (2001),
Modeling of compliance of motorcyclist to proper usage
of safety helmet in Malaysia, Journal of Crash Prevention and
Injury Control, 2: 239–246.
Kraus, JF, Peek, C, McArthur, DL, & Williams, A (1994), The effect of
the 1992 California motorcycle helmet use law on motorcycle
crash fatalities and injuries, Journal of the American Medical
Association, 272(19): 1506–1511.
La Torrel, G, Beeck, EV, Bertazzoni, G & Ricciardi, W (2007), Head
injury resulting from scooter accidents in Rome: differences
before and after implementing a universal helmet law, The
European Journal of Public Health, 17(6): 607–611.
Norlen M, Mohammad Fadhli MY, Ilhamah O, Noradrenalina I,
Wahida AB & Noor Faradila P (2010), Short-term and longterm effects of the enhance enforcement programmes on
seatbelt wearing among front occupants in Malaysia, Journal
of Community Health, 16(2): 47–56.
Petridou, E, Skalkidou, A, Ioannou, N, Trichooulos, D & Hellenic
Road Traffic Police (1998), Fatalities from non-use of use seat
belts and helmets in Greece: a nationwide appraisal, Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 30: 87–91.
Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) (2010), Statistical report of road
accidents in Malaysia, Traffic Branch, Bukit Aman, Kuala
Lumpur.
RTA (1987), Motor vehicles (safety seat-belts) (amendment) rules
2008, Kuala Lumpur: Road Transport Act.
RTO (1958), Motor vehicles (safety seatbelts) rules 1978, Kuala
Lumpur: Road Transport Ordinance.
Sosin, DM, Sacks, JJ & Holmgreen, P (1992), Motorcycle helmet
-use laws and head injury prevention, Journal of the American
Medical Association, 267(12): 1649–1651.
64
Williams, AF & Wells, JK (2004), The role of enforcement programs
in increasing seat belt use, Journal of Safety Research, 35(2):
175–180.
World Health Organization (2004), World report on road traffic
injury prevention, Accessed from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/
publications/2004/9241562609.pdf.
65
Appendices
Appendix A
Accident Analysis
Table A1.1 Total accident for year 2011
2011
Ops CNY
Day
Ops Raya
Jan–May
Jan–May (without Ops CNY)
15
15
151
136
Total accident
17294
19606
178698
161404
Fatal accident
183
259
2500
2317
Fatalities
199
289
2671
2472
Motorcycle fatality
136
178
1658
1522
Car fatality
38
67
528
490
Pedestrian fatality
16
17
215
199
Bicycle fatality
1
4
70
69
Van fatality
2
7
28
26
Bus fatality
1
0
5
4
Lorry fatality
2
6
86
84
Jeep fatality
2
6
50
48
Others fatality
1
4
31
30
Table A1.2 Daily accident rates for year 2011
2011
Ops CNY
Ops Raya
15
15
Total accident
1152.93
1307.07
1183.43
1186.79
Fatal accident
12.20
17.27
16.56
17.04
Fatalities
13.27
19.27
17.69
18.18
Motorcycle fatality
9.07
11.87
10.98
11.19
Car fatality
2.53
4.47
3.50
3.60
Pedestrian fatality
1.07
1.13
1.42
1.46
Bicycle fatality
0.07
1.13
0.46
0.51
Van fatality
0.13
0.47
0.19
0.19
Bus fatality
0.07
0.00
0.03
0.03
Day
Jan–May
151
136
(Continue)
66
2011
Ops CNY
Ops Raya
Jan–May
Lorry fatality
0.13
0.40
0.57
0.62
Jeep fatality
0.13
0.40
0.33
0.35
Others fatality
0.07
0.27
0.21
0.22
Table A1.3 Total accident for the 15-day period (Normal day, Ops CNY, Ops Raya)
2011
Projection of 15 days data
normal day
Ops CNY
Ops Raya
Total accident
17802
17294
19606
Fatal accident
256
183
259
Fatalities
273
199
289
Motorcycle fatality
168
136
178
Car fatality
54
38
67
Pedestrian fatality
22
16
17
Bicycle fatality
8
1
4
Van fatality
3
2
7
Bus fatality
0
1
0
Lorry fatality
9
2
6
Jeep fatality
5
2
6
Other fatalities
3
1
4
Figure A2.1 Total accidents and fatalities distribution by road type
67
Figure A2.2 Comparison of total fatalities during normal days and Ops Raya
Figure A2.3 Comparison of motorcycle fatalities during normal days and Ops
Raya (2009–2011)
Table A1.4 Chi-square results for accident data between Ops Raya 2011 and projection of 15 days’ data on
normal days
Ops Raya
2011
Total accidents
Projection of 15 days
data on normal day
x2
p
Sig
19606
17802
Overall fatalities
289
273
0.007
p<0.05
No
178
168
0.0005,
p<0.05
No
68
Table A1.5 t –test results for accident data between Ops Raya 2011 and Ops CNY 2011
Ops Raya 2011 Ops CNY 2011
t
p
Sig
19606
17294
2.437
0.021
Yes
Overall fatalities
289
199
3.550
0.001
Yes
178
136
2.053
0.05
No
Total accidents
Figure A2.4 Comparison of total fatalities during normal days and Ops CNY
(2009–2011)
Figure A2.5 Comparison of motorcycle fatalities during normal days and Ops
CNY (2009–2011)
69
Appendix B
Traffic Volume Data and Analysis
Figure B2.1 Traffic volume at Lebuhraya Pantai Timur (LPT) from 08/08/11–
21/09/11
Figure B2.2 Traffic volume at PLUS Expressway from 08/08/11–21/09/11
70
Figure B2.3 Traffic volume at LEKAS from 08/08/11–21/09/11
Figure B2.4 Traffic volume and accident records at Lebuhraya Pantai Timur
(LPT) from 08/08/11–21/09/11
71
Figure B2.5 Traffic volume and accident records at PLUS from 08/08/11–
21/09/11
Figure B2.6 Traffic volume and accident records at LEKAS from 08/08/11–
21/09/11
72
Appendix C
Table C1.1
In-depth Crash Investigation
Motorcyclists’ characteristics of motorcycle crash related to fatal
Category
Purpose of trip
Subcategory
Frequency (%)
Local travel
52 (64.2)
Commuting
26 (50.0)
Social/ recreation
17 (32.7)
Shopping
Licensing
9 (17.3)
Work
5 (6.2)
Education
1 (1.2)
Merempit
3 (3.7)
Unknown
20 (24.7)
No license
30 (41.1)
<16
5 (16.7)
16–30
17 (56.7)
>30
Origin of crash
participant
8 (26.7)
L license
4 (5.5)
P license
7 (9.6)
Permanent license
22 (30.1)
Unidentified
10 (13.7)
Motorcycle
77 (58.8)
Resident
65 (84.4)
Non resident
12 (15.6)
Unknown
Violation
1 (1.3)
Vehicle counter part
54 (41.2)
Resident
21 (38.9)
Non resident
19 (35.2)
Unknown
14 (25.9)
No violation
30 (41.1)
Speeding and lost control
15 (20.5)
Overtaking
11 (15.1)
Careless in turning
8 (11.0)
Illegal U turn
5 (6.8)
DUI
2 (2.7)
Red light running
Crash severity
2 (2.7)
Death at scene
35 (43.2)
Death during transportation/to hospital
46 (56.8)
73
Appendix D
Speed Data and Analysis
The locations where speed data was collected:
a) Jalan Kuala Lumpur–Ipoh, F001, Seksyen 475.4, Tanjung
Malim, Perak.
b) Jalan Kuala Selangor–Sabak Bernam, F005, Seksyen 462.3,
Kuala Selangor, Selangor.
c) Jalan Tampin–Segamat, F001, Seksyen 262, Tampin, Negeri
Sembilan.
d) Jalan Johor Bahru–Seremban, F001, Seksyen 184, Segamat,
Johor.
Table D1.1 One-hour vehicle count
Location
During Ops
After Ops
Kuala Selangor
707
662
Tampin
421
331
Tanjung Malim
564
456
Segamat
482
415
Volume
2174
1863
Table D1.3 Percentage of road users exceeding the speed limit
Location
During the Ops (%)
After the Ops (%)
Segamat
30.8
21.3
Tampin
17.8
3.5
Kuala Selangor
74.7
48.2
Tanjung Malim
60.5
29.2
Overall
46.2
25.8
74
Figure E2.1 Percentage of perception of being caught at all locations during the Hari Raya Aidilfitri 2011 period
Perception of Being Caught Among Road Users
Appendix E
75
76
Without
231
12
227
200
27
441
387
54
463
381
82
Belted
Unbelted
Belted
Unbelted
Belted
Unbelted
Belted
Unbelted
Belted
Unbelted
156
42
236
181
55
243
198
N
Belted
Unbelted
Use status
Odd ratio of 2 by 2 table analyses, bNot significant
a
Kota Tinggi
Pasir Gudang
Overall With
Johor
Bidor
Perak
Tapah
Site of
observation
State
82.3
87.8
88.1
95.1
76.7
78.8
%
Before
1.54
(1.05,2.27)
2.60
(1.23,5.59)
1.13b
(0.70,1.82)
OR
(95% CI)
a
445
70
472
377
95
222
33
236
199
37
515
223
37
236
178
58
255
260
N
79.9
86.4
84.3
87.1
75.4
85.8
%
During
1.60
(1.13,2.28)
1.25b
(0.73,2.14)
1.96
(1.21,3.18)
OR
(95% CI)
a
394
92
494
384
110
227
11
257
236
21
486
167
81
237
148
89
238
248
N
Table F1.1 Comparison on driver’s seatbelt use status at the sites with and without enforcement activities
Seatbelt Use Among Vehicle Occupants
77.7
81.1
91.8
95.4
62.4
67.3
%
After
1.23b
(0.89,1.69)
1.84b
(0.82,4.16)
1.24b
(0.84,1.83)
ORa
(95% CI)
Appendix F
77
Without
211
24
193
151
42
410
349
61
370
257
113
Belted
Unbelted
Belted
Unbelted
Belted
Unbelted
Belted
Unbelted
Belted
Unbelted
138
37
177
106
71
235
175
N
Belted
Unbelted
Use status
Before
69.5
85.1
78.2
89.8
59.9
78.9
%
a
Kota Tinggi
Pasir Gudang
Overall With
Johor
Bidor
Perak
Tapah
Site of
observation
State
2.52
(1.75,3.63)
2.45
(1.38,4.37)
2.50
(1.52,4.12)
OR
(95% CI)
a
338
129
443
309
134
193
55
232
182
50
467
145
74
211
127
84
248
219
N
69.8
72.4
78.4
77.8
60.2
66.2
%
During
1.14b
(0.84,1.53)
0.96b
(0.61,1.52)
1.30b
(0.86,1.96)
OR
(95% CI)
a
304
125
465
309
156
203
28
247
208
39
429
101
97
218
101
117
231
198
N
66.5
70.9
84.2
87.9
46.3
51.0
%
After
Table F1.2 Comparison on front passengers’ seatbelt use status at the sites with and without enforcement activities
1.23
(0.92,1.65)
1.36
(0.78,2.37)
1.21b
(0.81,1.81)
ORa
(95% CI)
78
Without
Overall With
Kota Tinggi
Pasir Gudang
96
566
560
44
516
Belted
Unbelted
Belted
Unbelted
Belted
Unbelted
48
395
295
27
268
662
48
171
265
17
248
443
219
N
Belted
Unbelted
Belted
Unbelted
Belted
Unbelted
Use status
%
Before
7.9
14.5
9.2
10.8
6.4
21.9
a
Perak
Johor
Bidor
State
Tapah
Site of
observation
1.99
(1.34,2.95)
1.21b
(0.72,2.04)
4.09
(2.20,7.69)
ORa
(95% CI)
47
702
839
72
767
26
411
498
43
455
749
21
291
341
29
312
437
312
N
8.6
6.3
8.6
5.9
8.5
6.7
%
ORa
(95% CI)
0.71b
(0.48,1.06)
0.67b
(0.39,1.14)
0.78 b
(0.42,1.44)
During
57
731
820
43
777
46
452
497
29
468
788
11
279
323
14
309
498
290
N
5.2
7.2
5.8
9.2
4.3
3.8
%
After
Table F1.3 Comparison on rear passengers’ seatbelt use status at the sites with and without enforcement activities
1.41 b
(0.92,2.16)
1.64 b
(0.99,2.74)
0.87 b
(0.36,2.08)
ORa
(95% CI)
Appendix G
Safety Level of Express Bus from Passengers’ Perspective
Table G1.1 Reason of choosing bus operator
Frequency
Valid percent
91
13.1
342
49.1
Cost effectiveness
8
1.1
Other’s decision
3
0.4
Favorite choice
3
0.4
Safety confidence
40
5.7
Use to it
64
9.2
116
16.6
3
0.4
Choice availability
Comfort
Time factor
No other transport
No preference
Brand trust
Total
7
1.0
20
2.9
697
100.0
Table G1.2 Reason of passengers’ choosing the bus
Frequency
Valid percent
Choice availability
194
31.0
Comfort
186
29.8
Cost effectiveness
13
2.1
Other’s decision
31
5.0
Favorite choice
27
4.3
Safety confidence
28
4.5
Use to it
46
7.4
Time factor
67
10.7
5
0.8
17
2.7
Service testing
No other transport
No preference
Total
11
1.8
625
100.0
79
Figure G2.1 The importance of travelling factors
Table G1.3 Passengers’ preference in travelling
1
Frequency
Percent
0
Frequency
Percent
Travel time (day=1, night=0)
570
77.9
162
22.1
Bus type (1 deck =1, double decker=0)
618
84.9
110
15.1
Seating location (downstairs=1, upstairs=0)
479
68.1
224
31.9
Passenger seatbelt (yes=1, no=0)
410
56.5
316
43.5
Bus speed (follow speed limit=1, over speed limit=0)
684
93.8
45
6.2
80
Research Report
Evaluation of Effectiveness of
Conducted over the Hari Raya Period from 23 August
2011 to 6 September 2011
Designed by: Publications Unit, MIROS
Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research
Lot 125-135, Jalan TKS 1, Taman Kajang Sentral
43000 Kajang, Selangor Darul Ehsan
Tel +603 8924 9200 Fax + 603 8733 2005
Website www.miros.gov.my Email [email protected]

ops bersepadu hari raya 2011

Transcription

Similar documents

OFFICE of - California State University, Los Angeles

North Atlantic MNPS Airspace Map

BE SPOILT

kad raya templete

1010-S - Oxium

A Note from Carl

opoka - Reves Network

Medical Check-up dates for

Oxo-degradable Additive - OXIUM 100% Degradable Plastic