عنوان مقاله [English]
The major cause of mortality in many of our country's cities is accidents involving heavy goods containing hazardous goods. These accidents cause a lot of social and economic costs. Safety of cargo vehicles is a multifaceted subject, and, in contrast to conventional road transport, is influenced by three categories of people, automobiles and the environment (such as roads and climates), it is significantly different from industrial needs, management policies, constraints and regulatory requirements, and regulatory actions Accepts. In most cities, passenger buses, corporate buses, and heavy goods vehicles containing dangerous goods (including trucks, trucks, trucks, tankers, trailers and trucks) are two groups of heavy goods vehicles containing hazardous goods in road and inland transportation. Despite their small share of the total number of vehicles on the roadways of the outskirts and inland roads, unfortunately, many of the injured, as well as the deceased, are related to crashes on one side, the two groups of heavy equipment containing dangerous goods (including Guilty or not. In general, in order to achieve safety at the time of cargo transportation, the characteristics and reasons for the crash of heavy goods containing dangerous goods must be identified and then measures to improve the safety of the equipment should be announced in order to determine, based on the findings, the best safety measures. In this regard, in the present study, due to the importance of the subject and the attempt to increase the accuracy of the study, questionnaires were designed and asked drivers of hazardous goods to complete the questionnaire. Finally, 319 completed questionnaires were obtained that were based on the calculations. After conducting interviews and interviewing drivers of hazardous goods, the problem was identified as social factors (such as age, education, and others with a weight of 0.412), priority (1), psychological factors (such as attitude, legality, aggressive driving, driving Defensive with a weight of 0.331. The second priority is legislative and regulatory compliance (with a weight of 0.302), a third priority, a general education (with a weight of 0.275), a fourth priority and economic factors (such as income, wealth, and other assets) became the fifth priority.
- سه لاتهنه، حامد. شریعت مهیمنی، افشین. غیاث الدین، مریم (1394)، «ارزیابی رفتارهای رانندگی در میان رانندگان حرفهای ناوگان تجاری - باری با استفاده از پرسشنامه رفتار رانندگی منچستر (نمونه موردی استان تهران) » چهاردهمین کنفرانس بین المللی مهندسی حمل و نقل و ترافیک.
-ذوقی، ح. آفتابی، ح، هوشنگی، س.، (1394)، «ارزیابی اثرات فرهنگ برایمنی ترافیک مطالعه تطبیقی فرهنگ ایمنی ترافیک ایران، چین و ژاپن» کنفرانس ملی مهندسی عمران و محیط زیست.
-Ayyub, B.M., 2014. Risk analysis in engineering and economics. Crc., Press.
-Batta, R. and Kwon, C., (2013), “Handbook of OR/MS models in hazardous materials transportation”. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
-Evans, L., )2001(, “Age and fatality risk from similar severity impacts”. Journal of traffic medicine, 29(1/2), pp.10-19.
-Inanloo, B., Tansel, B., (2016), “A transportation network assessment tool for hazardous material cargo routing: weighing exposure health risks, proximity to vulnerable areas, delay costs and trucking expenses”, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 40, pp.266-276.
-Kara, B.Y., Erkut, E. and Verter, V., (2003), “Accurate calculation of hazardous materials transport risks”. Operations research letters, 31(4), pp.285-292.
-Lajunen, T., Parker, D. and Summala, H., (2004), “The Manchester driver behavior questionnaire: a cross-cultural study”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(2), pp.231-238.
-Marhavilas, P.K. and Koulouriotis, D.E., (2008), “A risk-estimation methodological framework using quantitative assessment techniques and real accidents’ data: Application in an aluminum extrusion industry”. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 21(6), pp.596-603.
-Oggero, A., Darbra, R.M., Muñoz, M., Planas, E., Casal, J., (2006), “A survey of accidents occurring during the transport of hazardous substances by road and rail. Journal of Hazardous Materials A133,
-Reniers, G.L., Dullaert, W., Ale, B.J.M. and Soudan, K., (2005), “Developing an external domino accident prevention framework: Hazwim”. Journal of Loss Prevention in the process industries, 18(3), pp.127-138.
-Ronza, A., Vílchez, J. A., Casal, J., (2007), “Using transportation accident databases to investigate ignition and explosion probabilities of flammable spills”, Journal of Hazardous Materials 146(1–2), pp.106-123.
-Saat, M.R., Werth, C.J., Schaeffer, D., Yoon, H. and Barkan, C.P., (2014), “Environmental risk analysis of hazardous material rail transportation. Journal of hazardous materials, 264, pp.560-569.
-Saaty T. L., (1980), “The Analytical Hierarchy Process”, Tata McGraw Hill, New York.
-Wang, Y.H., Tong, S.J., Chen, B.Z., (2005), “Risk analysis on road transport system of dangerous chemicals. China Safety Science Journal 15 (2), 8–12 (in Chinese).
-Yang, J., Li, F.Y., Zhou, J.B., Zhang, L., Huang, L., Bi, J., (2010), “A survey on hazardous materials accidents during road transport in China from 2000 to 2008”. Journal of Hazardous Materials 184,
-Zhao, L., Wang, X. and Qian, Y., (2012) “Analysis of factors that influence hazardous material transportation accidents based on Bayesian networks: a case study in China”. Safety science, 50(4), pp.1049-1055.
-Zhao, L.J., Wu, P., Xu, K., (2009), “Statistic analysis and countermeasures on dangerous chemical accidents in China. China Safety Science Journal 19 (7)”, pp.165–170.
-Zhu, T., Zhao, L., Wang, X., (2016), “Road transportation accident analysis of HAZMAT based on Bayesian network”, Journal of Safety and Environment 16(2), pp. 53-60.