Application of 24 Model in the cause of road transportation accident

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2024.02.006

Abstract

Abstract:

The behavioral reasons for 215 road transport accidents occurring between 2015 and 2021 were investigated to prevent road transport accidents with the 24 Model. The direct causes, indirect causes, radical causes and their root causes were analyzed from the individual level and organizational level. The results show that the most frequent unsafe action is speeding (10.67%). 22.33% of road transport accidents are resulted from the managers illegally arranging unqualified employees to work; Managers and leaders have a significant impact on 57.67% of road transport accidents. The unsafe state caused by human factors accounted for 71.53%; The lack of driver and vehicle safety management system or implementation is particularly prominent among the root causes (20.92%). Based on this, safety countermeasures for accident prevention are proposed, and a relationship diagram of the factors in the road transportation system is constructed.

Key words: vehicle active safety, road transportation accident, accident cause, 24 Model, countermeasures

CLC Number:

X951

LIU Xiaolu, LIANG Zhixing, WU Jun’an, YAN Yuqiong, ZHANG Su. Application of 24 Model in the cause of road transportation accident[J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2024, 15(2): 185-195.

Figures/Tables 7

References 27

[1]	中华人民共和国交通运输部. 2020年10-12月交通运输事故互联网统计报告[R/OL]. 公交信息网, (2022-11-16). https://www.sohu.com/a/436907692_99949100.
	Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China. Internet statistical report on transport accidents October-December 2020[R/OL]. Public Transport Information Network. (2021-11-16). https://www.sohu.com/a/436907692_99949100. (in Chinese)
[2]	衡威威, 许洪国, 曾诚, 等. 基于突变理论的客运车辆交通事故机理研究[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2017, 24(1): 141-145.
	HENG Weiwei, XU Hongguo, ZENG Cheng, et al. Mechanism of traffic accidents of passenger vehicles based on the catastrophe theiry[J]. *Safe Envir Engi*, 2017, 24(1): 141-145. (in Chinese)
[3]	于影霞, 曾致桓, 龙丹. 基于事故树分析的货运驾驶员失误研究[J]. 华东交通大学学报, 2018, 35(1): 55-62.
	YU Yingxia, ZENG Zhihuan, LONG Dan. Study on truck drives' fault based on fault tree analysis[J]. *J East China Jiaotong Univ*, 2018, 35(1): 55-62. (in Chinese)
[4]	DONG Guoliang, JIA Hong, DONG Xuan, et al. Analysis of influencing factors in traffic accidents of road passenger transport vehicles[J]. **IOP Conf Seri: Earth Envir Sci, 2020, 587**(1): 012011.
[5]	吕通通, 张湛, 陆林军, 等. 基于互信息贝叶斯网络的交通事故严重程度分析[J]. 交通信息与安全, 2021, 39(6): 36-43.
	LV Tongtong, ZHANG Zhan, LU Linjun, et al. An analysis of traffic accident severity based on mutual-information Bayesian network[J]. *J Transport Info Safe*, 2021, 39(6): 36-43. (in Chinese)
[6]	Oleg B, Larysa K, Serhii C, et al. Methodology for assessing the risk of incidents during passenger road transportation using the functional resonance analysis method[J]. *Heliyon*, 2022, 8(11): e11814. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11814 URL
[7]	程国柱, 刚杰, 程瑞, 等. 公路货运通道路侧事故多发路段判别与线形设计[J]. 哈尔滨工业大学学报, 2022, 54(3): 131-138.
	CHENG Guozhu, GANG Jie, CHENG Rui, et al. Identification of roadside accident blackspot and geometric design of dedicated freight corridor on highways[J]. *J Harbin Instit Tech*, 2022, 54(3): 131-138. (in Chinese)
[8]	呼军艳. 人因视角的重特大道路客运事故致因研究[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2023.
	HU Junyan. Research on contributory factors of major road passenger vehicle accidents from the perspective of human factors[J]. *Lanzhou: Lanzhou University*. 2023. (in Chinese)
[9]	安泽, 刘大鹏.基于“2-4 ”模型的安全文化元素改进及实证应用[J]. 矿业安全与环保, 2017, 44(5): 111-115.
	AN Ze, LIU Dapeng. Improvement and application of safety culture element based on “2-4” Model[J]. *Mini Safe Envir Prot*, 2017, 44(5): 111-115. (in Chinese)
[10]	傅贵, 陈奕燃, 许素睿, 等. 事故致因“2-4”模型的内涵解析及第6版的研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(1): 12-19. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.002
	FU Gui, CHEN Yiran, XU Surui, et al. Detailed explanations of 24 Model and development of its 6th version[J]. *China Safe Sci J*, 2022, 32(1): 12-19. (in Chinese)
[11]	FU Gui, ZHAO Ziqi, HAO Chuanbo, et al. The accident path of coal mine gas explosion based on 24model: a case study of the ruizhiyuan gas explosion accident[J]. *Processes*, 2019, 7(2): 73-73. doi: 10.3390/pr7020073 URL
[12]	FANG Ming, ZHANG Yi, ZHU Mengjue, et al. Cause mechanism of metro collapse accident based on risk coupling[J]. *Int’l J Envir Res Publ Heal*, 2022, 19(4): 2102-2102.
[13]	LI Jing, QIN Yaru, WANG Zhen, et al. How to analyse the injury based on 24Model: A case study of coal mine gas explosion injury[J]. **Inju Prev: J Int’l Soc Child Adol Inju Prev**, 2021, 27(6): 542-553.
[14]	郭海军, 唐寒露, 王凯, 等. 基于24Model的高校危化品实验室事故分析及对策[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(11): 168-174. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.11.2442
	GUO Haijun, TANG Hanlu, WANG Kai, et al. Accident analysis and countermeasures of university hazardous chemical laboratory based on 24Model[J]. *Chin Safe Sci J*, 2022, 32(11): 168-174. (in Chinese)
[15]	LYU Qian, FU Gui, WANG Yuxin, et al. Cause analysis framework from a safety capability perspective: Application to Tianjiayi hazardous chemical explosion accident[J]. *Proc Safe Prog*, 2023, 42(3): 567-577.
[16]	JIANG Wei, LI Yun, ZHOU Jiankai, et al. Comparative study of the hazardous chemical transportation accident analyses using the CREAM model and the 24Model[J]. *Sustainability*, 2021, 13(22): 12923. doi: 10.3390/su132212923 URL
[17]	中华人民共和国应急管理部. 交通事故调查报告[R/OL]. 安全管理网. [2022-11-16]. https://www.safehoo.com/.
	Ministry of Emergency Mnagement of the People’s Republic of China. Traffic Accident Investigation Report[R/OL]. *Security Management Network*. [2022-11-16]. https://www.safehoo.com/. (in Chinese)
[18]	张苏, 刘晓露, 聂晓琴, 等. 电力人身伤亡事故致因网络的构建与分析[J/OL]. 安全与环境学报, 1-8. [2024-04-06]. https://doi.org/10.13637/j.issn.1009-6094.2023.1328.
	ZHANG Su, LIU Xiaolu, NIE Xiaoqin, et al. Construction and analysis of the causal network of electric power personal injury and death accidents[J/OL]. J Safety Envir, 1-8. [2024-04-06]. https://doi.org/10.13637/j.issn.1009-6094.2023.1328. (in Chinese)
[19]	孙祖航. 建筑施工事故原因分析及事故预警研究[D]. 长春: 吉林建筑大学, 2023.
	SUN Zuhang. Analysis of the causes of construction accidents and research on accident early warning[D]. Changchun: Jilin Jianzhu University, 2023. (in Chinese)
[20]	FU Gui, XIE Xuecai, JIA Qingsong, et al. The development history of accident causation models in the past 100 years: 24Model, a more modern accident causation model[J]. *Proc Safe Envir Prot*, 2020, 134: 47-82. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2019.11.027 URL
[21]	张苏, 王雅先, 王金贵.基于“2-4 ”模型的高校实验室安全文化建设水平模糊综合评价[J]. 实验技术与管理, 2021, 38(7): 291-296.
	ZHANG Su, WANG Yaxian, WANG Jingui. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of university laboratory safety culture construction level based on “2-4” model[J]. *Expe Tech Manag*, 2021, 38(7): 291-296. (in Chinese)
[22]	FU Gui, CAO Jialin, ZHOU Lin, et al. Comparative study of HFACS and the 24Model accident causation models[J]. *Petro Sci*, 2017, 14(3): 570-578. doi: 10.1007/s12182-017-0171-4 URL
[23]	鲁征, 傅贵, 薛忠智. 天津港“8·12”危险品仓库火灾爆炸事故行为原因研究[J]. 灾害学, 2017, 32(1): 205-211.
	LU Zheng, FU Gui, XUE Zhongzhi. Research on behavioral causes of a fire and explosion accident of 8·12 in Tianjin port[J]. *J Catastroph*, 2017, 32(1): 205-211. (in Chinese)
[24]	关城, 严玉琼, 张苏. 基于24Model的电力企业伤亡事故行为原因研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2023, 23(8): 2788-2793.
	GUAN Cheng, YAN Yuqiong, ZHANG Su. Study on Causes of Casualty Accidents in Electric Power Enterprises Based on 24Model[J]. *J Safe Envir*, 2023, 23(8): 2788-2793. (in Chinese)
[25]	FU Gui, ZHOU Lin, WANG Jianhao, et al. Analysis of an explosion accident at Dangyang power plant in Hubei, China: Causes and lessons learned[J]. *Safe Sci*, 2018, 102: 134-143. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.010 URL
[26]	傅贵, 吴琼, 李亚, 等. 不安全动作与不安全物态的判定方法探讨[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2017, 17(3): 994-998.
	FU Gui, WU Qiong, LI Ya, et al. Discussion on the determination method of unsafe action and unsafe state[J]. *J Safe Envir*, 2017, 17(3): 994-998. (in Chinese)
[27]	周琳, 傅贵, 刘希扬. 基于行为安全理论的化工事故统计及分析[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2016, 12(1): 148-153.
	ZHOU Lin, FU Gui, LIU Xiyang. Statistics and analysis of chemical accidents based on behavioral safety theory[J]. *Sci Tech Safe Prod China*, 2016, 12(1): 148-153. (in Chinese)

序号	不安全动作	不安全动作描述	频数/次	频率/ %	动作发出者	违章状况
1	违规行驶	超速行驶	56	10.67	驾驶员	违章操作（VO）
		未按照交通信号指示驾驶	23	4.38
		疲劳驾驶	21	4.00
		违规超车	19	3.62
		违规倒停车	16	3.05
		驾驶过程中使用电子设备或注意力不集中	14	2.67
		醉酒驾驶	7	1.33
		违规占线	4	0.76
		车辆骤停	3	0.57
2	未观察行车路况	未观察行车车辆	31	5.90	驾驶员
		未观察指示信号牌	26	4.95
		未观察行人	6	1.14
3	驾驶技能或避险应急措施采取不当	跟车车距不足	34	6.48	驾驶员
		高速急打方向盘	17	3.24
		发现危险未减速停车	6	1.14
4	未及时发现隐患	未及时发现车辆故障	31	5.90	驾驶员 /管理者
4	未及时发现隐患	隐患状态下运营行驶	12	2.29	驾驶员 /管理者
5	违章上岗作业	安排无资质员工上岗作业	48	9.14	管理者	违章指挥 (VC)
		安排未经安全技能培训的员工上岗作业	41	7.81
		指挥或纵容员工疲劳、超载或故障驾驶	38	7.24
6	未设置安全生产部门或人员	未配备安全生产机构	15	2.86	管理者 /领导者
6	未设置安全生产部门或人员	未设置专职安全员	13	2.48	管理者 /领导者
7	未佩戴安全防护装置	未佩戴安全带	24	4.57	驾驶员	违章行动 (VA)
8	非法运营、违法承包	非法运营、违法承包	20	3.81	领导者	违章行动 (VA)

序号	不安全动作	不安全动作描述	频数/次	频率/ %	动作发出者	违章状况
1	违规行驶	超速行驶	56	10.67	驾驶员	违章操作（VO）
		未按照交通信号指示驾驶	23	4.38
		疲劳驾驶	21	4.00
		违规超车	19	3.62
		违规倒停车	16	3.05
		驾驶过程中使用电子设备或注意力不集中	14	2.67
		醉酒驾驶	7	1.33
		违规占线	4	0.76
		车辆骤停	3	0.57
2	未观察行车路况	未观察行车车辆	31	5.90	驾驶员
		未观察指示信号牌	26	4.95
		未观察行人	6	1.14
3	驾驶技能或避险应急措施采取不当	跟车车距不足	34	6.48	驾驶员
		高速急打方向盘	17	3.24
		发现危险未减速停车	6	1.14
4	未及时发现隐患	未及时发现车辆故障	31	5.90	驾驶员 /管理者
4	未及时发现隐患	隐患状态下运营行驶	12	2.29	驾驶员 /管理者
5	违章上岗作业	安排无资质员工上岗作业	48	9.14	管理者	违章指挥 (VC)
		安排未经安全技能培训的员工上岗作业	41	7.81
		指挥或纵容员工疲劳、超载或故障驾驶	38	7.24
6	未设置安全生产部门或人员	未配备安全生产机构	15	2.86	管理者 /领导者
6	未设置安全生产部门或人员	未设置专职安全员	13	2.48	管理者 /领导者
7	未佩戴安全防护装置	未佩戴安全带	24	4.57	驾驶员	违章行动 (VA)
8	非法运营、违法承包	非法运营、违法承包	20	3.81	领导者	违章行动 (VA)

序号	不安全物态	不安全物态描述	频数/次	频率%	违章状况	自然/人为因素
1	路况不佳	危险路段	15	5.08	A	自然
		危险路段	8	2.71	H
		路面湿滑	7	2.37	A
		路面湿滑	4	1.36	H
2	天气不良	能见度低	27	9.15	A
		能见度低	4	1.36	H
		雨雪雾天	11	3.73	A
		雨雪雾天	8	2.71	H
3	载荷超限	超载状态运行的车辆	72	24.41	V	人为
4	车辆存在安全隐患或不符合技术标准	车辆制动性能不合格	48	16.27	V
		违法私改的车辆	35	11.86
		安全防护装置缺失或失效	21	7.12
		车轮爆胎	8	2.71
5	车辆的不安全状态	停车车辆产生的不安全状态	14	4.75	V
		停车车辆产生的不安全状态	4	1.36	H
		客车货用或货车客用的车辆	6	2.03	V
		客车货用或货车客用的车辆	3	1.02	H

序号	不安全物态	不安全物态描述	频数/次	频率%	违章状况	自然/人为因素
1	路况不佳	危险路段	15	5.08	A	自然
		危险路段	8	2.71	H
		路面湿滑	7	2.37	A
		路面湿滑	4	1.36	H
2	天气不良	能见度低	27	9.15	A
		能见度低	4	1.36	H
		雨雪雾天	11	3.73	A
		雨雪雾天	8	2.71	H
3	载荷超限	超载状态运行的车辆	72	24.41	V	人为
4	车辆存在安全隐患或不符合技术标准	车辆制动性能不合格	48	16.27	V
		违法私改的车辆	35	11.86
		安全防护装置缺失或失效	21	7.12
		车轮爆胎	8	2.71
5	车辆的不安全状态	停车车辆产生的不安全状态	14	4.75	V
		停车车辆产生的不安全状态	4	1.36	H
		客车货用或货车客用的车辆	6	2.03	V
		客车货用或货车客用的车辆	3	1.02	H

序号	不安全动作与物态描述	个体能力欠缺
序号	不安全动作与物态描述	安全知识	安全意识	安全习惯	安全生理	安全心理
1	超速行驶	√	√	√	-	√
2	醉酒驾驶	-	√	-	√	√
3	未观察行车路况	-	√	√	-	√
4	避险应急措施采取不当	√	√	√	-	√
5	安全无资质人员上岗作业	√	√	-	-	√
6	指挥或纵容员工疲劳、超载或故障状态驾驶	-	√	√	√	√
7	货物超载	-	√	√	-	√
8	车辆存在安全隐患和安全防护装置缺失或失效	-	√	√	-	√
9	安全车距不足	√	√	√	-	√
10	客车货用或货车客用的车辆	√	√	√	-	√