ops bersepadu hari raya 2011

Malaysian Institute of Road Safety ResearchLot 125-135, Jalan TKS 1, Taman Kajang Sentral43000 Kajang, Selangor Darul EhsanTel +603 8924 9200 Fax + 603 8733 2005Website www.miros.gov.my Email [email protected]

MRR 03/2012

Designed by: Publications Unit, MIROS

Research Report

Evaluation of the E�ectiveness of OPS BERSEPADU HARI RAYA 2011

Editors

Jamilah Mohd Marjan, PhDNorlen Mohamed, MDMohd Rasid Osman, P EngFuad Abas, P EngMohd Faudzi Mohd Yusof, PhDWong Shaw Voon, PhD

Conducted over the Hari Raya Period from 23 August 2011 to 6 September 2011

Research Report

Evaluation of E�ectiveness ofOPS BERSEPADU HARI RAYA 2011


Research Report

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of

OPS BERSEPADU HARI RAYA 2011 Conducted over the Hari Raya Period from 23 August 2011 to6 September 2011

Editors


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 2011conducted over the Hari Raya period from 23 August 2011 to 6 September 2011 editor Jamilah Mohd Marjan... [et al]ISBN 978-967-5967-12-21. 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 LightSize : 11 pt / 15 pt

DISCLAIMERNone 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 2011Conducted over the Hari Raya Period from 23 August 2011 to 6 September 2011

iii

Project Leaders and Contributors

Project: General Accident Analysis During Ops Raya and Ops CNYProject Leader:Sharifah Allyana Syed Md RahimProject Contributors:Rohayu SaraniHizal Hanis Hashim

Project: Traffic VolumeProject Leader:Nor Aznirahani Mhd YuninProject Contributors:Ramizam Noor ZamanNusayba Megat Johari

Project: Motorcycle Risk AnalysisProject Leader:Ho Jen Sim Project Contributors:Akmalia Binti Shabadin

Project: In-depth Crash Investigation Study During Ops 24Project Leader:Siti Atiqah Mohd FaudziAbdul Rahmat Abdul ManapProject Contributors:Mohd Huzaifah MuntalipAhmad Noor Syukri Zainal AbidinFauziana Lamin Mohamad Mahafiz Abd RahimHazrul Affandy HamalitdinMohd Syafeeq RamliMaryatini Md SaadTan Kean LeeMuhammad Fhirdaus Shahrudin


iv

Sharifah Allyana Syed Md RahimAhmad Sharil Mohd YusofMohd Hanif Md Ilias

Project: Road Users Information (Media)Project Leader:Maslina binti Musa Project Contributors:Nor Aini Mohd Rosdi Norliana Ali Haidzir Yusof Ghani Muhammad Amien Md Hawari Eddy Azuan Senin

Project: Speed Change StudyProject Leader:Syed Tajul Malik Syed Tajul ArifProject Contributors:Ramizam Noor ZamanAlvin Poi Wai HoongHo Jen SimNorfaizah Mohamad KhaidirRohayu SaraniAzzuhana Roslan

Project: Perception of Being Caught Study Among Road UsersProject Leader:Noradrenalina Isah Project Contributors:Nor Fadilah Mohd SoidSanizah Saleh

Project: Perception of Being Caught Study Among Bus DriverProject Leader:Nor Fadilah Mohd Soid Project Contributors:Noradrenalina Isah Mohd Rasid Osman, P EngSanizah Saleh


v

Project: Compliancy of Helmet WearingProject Leader:Mohd Khairul Alhapiz IbrahimProject Contributors:Zarir Hafiz ZulkipliAzzuhana RoslanMohd Hafzi Md IsaNorfaizah Mohamad Khaidir Abdul Rahmat Abdul Manap

Project: Seatbelt Wearing Among Vehicle OccupantsProject Leader:Wahida Ameer Batcha Project Contributors:Mohamad Suffian AhmadNorlen Mohamed, MD

Project: Safety Level of Express Bus from Passenger’s PerspectiveProject Leader:Rabihah IlyasProject Contributors:Mohd Rasid Osman, P EngNuura Addina MohamadAkmalia ShabadinMohamad Suffian Ahmad Hawa Mohamed Jamil Fuad Abas, P Eng Mohd Huzaifah Muntalip

Project: Illegal OvertakingProject Leader:Sharifah Allyana Syed Md RahimProject Contributors:HizaL Hanis HashimNur Fazzillah Mohd NordinNurul Huda JamaludinNor Aznirahani Mhd YuninNusayba Megat Johari


vii

List of Tables xList of Figures xiAcknowledgements xiiiExecutive Summary xv

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Analysis of Current Situation – Accident, Traffic Volume, Risks and Crash Investigation 2 2.1 Accident data analysis based on Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) data 2 2.1.1 Introduction 2 2.1.2 Hypothesis 3 2.1.3 Findings 3 2.1.4 Summary 8 2.2 Traffic Volume Analysis 9 2.2.1 Introduction 9 2.2.2 Hypothesis 9 2.2.3 Findings 10 2.2.4 Summary 14 2.3 Motorcycle Risk Analysis 15 2.3.1 Introduction 15 2.3.2 Hypothesis 15 2.3.3 Findings 16 2.3.4 Summary 18 2.4 In-depth Road Crashes Investigation 19 2.4.1 Introduction 19 2.4.2 Findings 20 2.4.3 Summary 24

3.0 Advocacy 25 3.1 Road User Information (Media) 25 3.1.1 Introduction 25 3.1.2 Hypothesis 26 3.1.3 Findings 26 3.1.4 Summary 27

Table of Contents


viii

4.0 Specific Studies Related to the Ops 28 4.1 Speed Change Study 28 4.1.1 Introduction 28 4.1.2 Hypothesis 29 4.1.3 Findings 29 4.1.4 Summary 31 4.2 Study on the Perception of Being Caught Among Road Users 32 4.2.1 Introduction 32 4.2.2 Hypothesis 33 4.2.3 Findings 33 4.2.4 Summary 37 4.3 Perception of Being Caught Among Bus Drivers 38 4.3.1 Introduction 38 4.3.2 Hypothesis 39 4.3.3 Findings 39 4.3.4 Summary 41 4.4 Compliancy with Helmet Use 42 4.4.1 Introduction 42 4.4.2 Hypothesis 43 4.4.3 Findings 43 4.4.4 Summary 44 4.5 Seatbelt Use Among Vehicle Occupants 44 4.5.1 Introduction 44 4.5.2 Hypothesis 46 4.5.3 Findings 47 4.5.4 Summary 51 4.6 Safety Level of Express Bus from Passengers’ Perspective 51 4.6.1 Introduction 51 4.6.2 Hypothesis 52 4.6.3 Findings 52 4.6.4 Summary 56 4.7 Overtaking 56 4.7.1 Introduction 56 4.7.2 Hypothesis 57 4.7.3 Findings 57 4.7.4 Summary 58

5.0 Conclusion 58

References 63


ix

Appendices 66 Appendix A 66 Appendix B 70 Appendix C 73 Appendix D 74 Appendix E 75 Appendix F 76 Appendix G 79


x

List of Tables

Table 1 Crash data on LEKAS, PLUS and KL-Karak Expressways 12Table 2 Traffic volumes at each expressway 14Table 3 Relative risk for motorcyclist fatalities year 2011 (Ops Raya vs normal days) 17Table 4 Relative risk for motorcyclist fatalities year 2011 (with reference to year 2009) 17Table 5 Relative risk for motorcyclist fatalities year 2011 (Ops CNY vs Ops Raya) 17Table 6 Ratio of change in MC fatalities with reference to year 2009 18Table 7 Crash characteristic of fatal related motorcycle crash 23Table 8 Comparison of mean speed during and after Ops 29Table 9 Comparison of mean speed at locations without and with PMS 30Table 10 Analysis in road users’ perception of being caught for 2008 until 2011 festival periods 34Table 11 Comparison of road users’ perception of being caught between Ops for each Hari Raya (Year 2008–2010) 35Table 12 Comparison of road users’ perception of being caught between Ops for 2011 Hari Raya 36Table 13 Analysis in bus drivers’ overall perception of being caught for two main periods 40Table 14 Comparison of bus drivers’ perception of being caught for two main periods 40Table 15 Effectiveness of traffic enforcement methods conducted by respective agencies 41Table 16 Comparison of mean scores POBC between the respective enforcement methods 41Table 17 Likelihood of vehicle occupant seatbelt use during and after as compared to before the Ops 48Table 18 Passenger’s perception on express bus performance 54Table 19 Passenger’s perception on driver’s behaviour 55Table 20 Study locations for illegal overtaking 57Table 21 Total volume and illegal overtaking during and after Ops Raya 2011 58

Page


xi

List of Figures

Figure 1 Daily data for accidents, fatal accidents and fatalities during Ops Raya 2011 4Figure 2 Daily fatalities during Ops Raya 2011 by road user type 5Figure 3 Fatalities, motorcycle fatalities and total accident during Ops Raya 2009, 2010, 2011 7Figure 4 Traffic volume profile along the KL-Karak Expressway 11Figure 5 Comparison of heavy vehicle volume at PLUS, LPT, KL-Karak and LEKAS Expressways 11Figure 6 Traffic volume and accident along KL-Karak Expressway 13Figure 7 Motorcyclist fatalities from 2009 to 2011 16Figure 8 Frequency of media exposure 26Figure 9 Media exposure and awareness level 27Figure 10 Speed behaviour during and after the Ops 31Figure 11 Percentage of visibility of traffic enforcement at all locations 37Figure 12 Nationwide seatbelt use rate (Overall) December 2008–June 2010 45Figure 13 Overall seatbelt use rate among vehicle occupants by the period of the Ops at the sites with enforcement activities 47

Page


xiii

Acknowledgements

Ops Bersepadu Hari Raya 2011 involved the concurrence, cooperation and input of several government agencies, non-governmental 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.


xv

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


xvi

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


xvii

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.


1

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.


2

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.


3

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.


4

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 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

Figure 1 Daily data for accidents, fatal accidents and fatalities during Ops Raya 2011


5

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.

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

Figure 2 Daily fatalities during Ops Raya 2011 by road user type


6

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


7

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.

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).

Figure 3 Fatalities, motorcycle fatalities and total accidents during Ops Raya 2009, 2010, 2011


8

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.


9

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.


10

• 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.


11

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 4 Traffic volume profile along the KL-Karak Expressway

Figure 5 Comparison of heavy vehicle volume at PLUS, LPT, KL-Karak and LEKAS Expressways


12

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.

Expressway concessionaires

Before Ops During Ops Difference in number of crashes (%)Number of crashes Number of crashes

LEKAS 14 13 7

PLUS 383 354 7.5

KL-Karak 42 23 45

LPT 43 42 2

Table 1 Crash data on LEKAS, PLUS and KL-Karak Expressways

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.


13

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


14

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.

Expressway concessionaires

Before Ops During Ops Difference in average daily

traffic (%)

Difference in number

of crash (%)Average

daily trafficNumber of crash

Average daily traffic

Number of crash

LEKAS 35,137 14 48,145 13 37 7

PLUS 1,158,064 383 1,227,290 354 6 7.5

KL-Karak 78, 394 42 133,210 23 70 45

LPT 23,559 43 41,345 42 75 2

Table 2 Traffic volumes at each expressway

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


15

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.


16

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


17

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).

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 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 3 Relative risk of motorcyclist fatalities in year 2011 (Ops Raya vs normal days)

Year Total of fatalities MC fatalities RR motorcycle

Normal day

OpsCNY

Ops Raya

Normal day

OpsCNY

Ops Raya

Normal day

OpsCNY

Ops Raya

2009 281 212 265 169 152 148 Base

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

Table 4 Relative risk of motorcyclist fatalities in year 2011 (with reference to year 2009)

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

Table 5 Relative risk of motorcyclist fatalities in year 2011 (Ops CNY vs Ops Raya)


18

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.

Year 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

Table 6 Ratio of change in MC fatalities with reference to year 2009

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.


19

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


20

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


21

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 pick-up 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


22

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.


23

Category Subcategory Frequency (%)

Age of occupant <14 4 (4.9)

14-16 8 (9.9)

16–30 42 (51.9)

>30 27 (33.3)

Gender of occupant Male 75 (92.6)

Female 6 (7.4)

Time of crash 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)

Type of road Expressway 3 (3.9)

Federal 28 (36.4)

State 19 (24.7)

Municipal 22 (28.6)

Village Road 5 (6.5)

Collision type SVA 23 (29.5)

Tree 0 (0.0)

Narrow object 2 (8.7)

Wide object (fence/parked car) 2 (8.7)

Barrier 5 (21.7)

Other (animal, pedestrian, hole) 4 (17.4)

Drain embankment culvert 6 (26.1)

Multiple 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)

Crash configuration

Head-on 16 (29.6)

Mrear 10 (18.5)

Vrear 8 (14.8)

Side 17 (31.5)

Sideswipe 3 (5.6)

Table 7 Crash characteristic of fatal related motorcycle crash


24

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 non-resident vehicles before and during the Ops period. Secondly, motorcycles may not accurately represent the effect of the


25

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.


26

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.

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

Figure 8 Frequency of media exposure


27

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.


28

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.


29

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

Location During Ops After Ops

Segamat 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


30

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).

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

Table 9 Comparison of mean speed at locations without and with PMS

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).


31

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.

Figure 10 Speed behaviour during and after the Ops


32

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.


33

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


34

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

PeriodOps 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.


35

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.

Mean SD ANOVA Test

Raya 2010 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

Raya 2009 F(2,5284) = 33.773, p=.0001

Before Ops 4.0502 2.5716

During Ops 4.7576 2.7034

After Ops 4.5710 2.5921

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

Table 11 Comparison of road users’ perception of being caught between Ops for each Hari Raya (Year 2008–2010)


36

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.

Mean SD Independent-samples t-test

Raya 2011 t (798) = 1.083 , p = .279

During Ops 4.80 2.623

After Ops 4.60 1.638

Table 12 Comparison of road users’ perception of being caught between Ops for 2011 Hari Raya

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.


37

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.

Figure 11 Percentage of visibility of traffic enforcement at all locations


38

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.


39

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).


40

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 rank p-value

Mean scores POBC

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.


41

Table 15 Effectiveness of traffic enforcement methods conducted by respective agencies

Enforcement agencies

Methods Mean Overall mean scores

PDRM 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

JPJ Plain-clothes (undercover) enforcers on public transport 6.76 7.53

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

SPAD Enforcer patrols in bus terminal /crash-prone areas 5.44 5.45

Placing enforcers in bus terminal areas 5.46

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.

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 -


42

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


43

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.


44

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


45

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


46

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.


47

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


48

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 After Ops

N N RRa(95% CI) N RRa(95% CI)

DRIVER

Overall Belted 1588 1574 0.97b

(0.95,1.00)1760 1.00b

(0.97,1.02)

Non-expressways

Unbelted 223 274 257

Belted 387 445 0.98b

(0.94,1.03)394 0.92

(0.87,0.98)

Expressways Unbelted 54 70 92

Belted 1201 1129 0.97b

(0.94,1.00)1366 1.02b

(0.99,1.05)


FRONT PASSENGER

Overall Belted 1349 1222 0.89(0.86,0.92)

1411 0.93(0.90,0.96)

Non-expressways


Belted 349 338 0.85(0.79,0.91)

304 0.83(0.77,0.90)


Belted 1000 884 0.90(0.86,0.94)

1107 0.96b

(0.93,1.00)


REAR PASSENGER

Overall Belted 303 231 0.75(0.64,0.89)

172 0.51(0.43,0.61)

Non-expressways

Unbelted 2176 2277 2577

Belted 96 47 0.40(0.29,0.56) 57 0.50(0.37,0.68)


Belted 207 184 0.95b

(0.79,1.15)115 0.51

(0.41,0.64)

Unbelted 1610 1511 1846

aRelative risk of 2 X 2 table analyses, bNot significant


49

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).


50

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


51

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.


52

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.


53

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.


54

Table 18 Passengers’ perception on express bus performance

Attribute % Rating

Very bad Bad Satisfying Good Very goodSafety performance

During Ops 0.2 0.9 14.8 55.4 28.7

After Ops 0.0 1.4 20.9 55.1 22.6

Comfort performance

During Ops 0 2.1 14.8 53,5 29.6

After Ops 0 3.1 20.8 51.9 24.2

Punctuality performance

During Ops 2.1 3.6 20.7 44.9 28.7

After Ops 1.4 4.4 26.6 45.1 22.5

Overall performance

During Ops 0.2 1.1 57.6 27.6 28.7

After Ops 0.3 0.7 58.6 22.6 22.6

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.


55

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.

Attribute % Rating

Never Seldom Often Always

Frequency of emergency braking

During Ops 69.8 23.9 5.5 0.9

After Ops 73.4 16.7 8.9 1

Frequency of driver speeding

During Ops 53.7 30.1 14.2 2.1

After Ops 64.5 21.5 11.3 2.7

Frequency of bus driven in emergency lane

During Ops 96.1 2.7 0.7 0.5

After Ops 95.2 2.4 2.4 0

Frequency of red light running

During Ops 96.1 2.7 0.7 0.5

After Ops 95.2 2.4 2.4 0

Table 19 Passengers’ perception on driver’s behaviour

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.


56

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.


57

4.7.2 Hypothesis

The Ops is effective in reducing the number of illegally-overtaking 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 illegally-overtaking 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).

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)

Table 20 Study locations for illegal overtaking


58

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

Table 21 Total volume and illegal overtaking during and after Ops Raya 2011

Period Car Van/MPV

Lorry Bus Motorcycle Total

During Total volume 9119 2498 2551 128 3065 17361

Total illegal overtaking

410 101 55 1 74 641

After Total volume 8660 2353 2586 124 3201 16924

Total illegal overtaking

379 98 40 0 95 612


59

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


60

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


61

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%


62

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.


63

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.


64

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 long-term 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.


65

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.


66

Appendices

Appendix A

Accident Analysis

2011

Ops CNY Ops Raya Jan–May Jan–May (without Ops CNY)

Day 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 A1.1 Total accident for year 2011

2011


Day 15 15 151 136

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

Table A1.2 Daily accident rates for year 2011

(Continue)


67

2011


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


68

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

Projection of 15 days data on normal day

x2 p Sig

Total accidents 19606 17802

Overall fatalities 289 273 0.007 p<0.05 No

Motorcycle fatalities 178 168 0.0005, p<0.05 No

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)


69

Figure A2.4 Comparison of total fatalities during normal days and Ops CNY (2009–2011)

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

Total accidents 19606 17294 2.437 0.021 Yes

Overall fatalities 289 199 3.550 0.001 Yes

Motorcycle fatalities 178 136 2.053 0.05 No

Figure A2.5 Comparison of motorcycle fatalities during normal days and Ops CNY (2009–2011)


70

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


71

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


72

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


73

Appendix C

In-depth Crash Investigation

Table C1.1 Motorcyclists’ characteristics of motorcycle crash related to fatal

Category Subcategory Frequency (%)

Purpose of trip Local travel 52 (64.2)

Commuting 26 (50.0)

Social/ recreation 17 (32.7)

Shopping 9 (17.3)

Work 5 (6.2)

Education 1 (1.2)

Merempit 3 (3.7)

Unknown 20 (24.7)

Licensing No license 30 (41.1)

<16 5 (16.7)

16–30 17 (56.7)

>30 8 (26.7)

L license 4 (5.5)

P license 7 (9.6)

Permanent license 22 (30.1)

Unidentified 10 (13.7)

Origin of crash participant

Motorcycle 77 (58.8)

Resident 65 (84.4)

Non resident 12 (15.6)

Unknown 1 (1.3)

Vehicle counter part 54 (41.2)

Resident 21 (38.9)

Non resident 19 (35.2)

Unknown 14 (25.9)

Violation 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 2 (2.7)

Crash severity Death at scene 35 (43.2)

Death during transportation/to hospital 46 (56.8)


74

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.

Location During Ops After Ops

Kuala Selangor 707 662

Tampin 421 331

Tanjung Malim 564 456

Segamat 482 415

Volume 2174 1863

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

Table D1.1 One-hour vehicle count

Table D1.3 Percentage of road users exceeding the speed limit


75

Appendix E

Figu

re E

2.1

Perc

enta

ge o

f per

cept

ion

of b

eing

cau

ght a

t all

loca

tions

dur

ing

the

Har

i Ray

a A

idilfi

tri 2

011

perio

d

Perc

eptio

n of

Bei

ng C

augh

t Am

ong

Road

Use

rs


76

Appendix F

Stat

eSi

te o

f ob

serv

atio

nU

se s

tatu

s

Befo

reD

urin

gA

fter

N%

ORa

(95%

CI)

N%

ORa

(95%

CI)

N%

ORa

(95%

CI)

Pera

k

Bido

r19

878

.81.

13b

(0.7

0,1.

82)

260

85.8

1.96

(1.2

1,3.

18)

248

67.3

1.24

b

(0.8

4,1.

83)

Belte

d15

622

316

7

Unb

elte

d42

3781

Tapa

h23

676

.723

675

.423

762

.4

Belte

d18

117

814

8

Unb

elte

d55

5889

Joho

rPa

sir G

udan

g24

395

.12.

60(1

.23,

5.59

)25

587

.11.

25b

(0.7

3,2.

14)

238

95.4

1.84

b

(0.8

2,4.

16)

Belte

d23

122

222

7

Unb

elte

d12

3311

Kota

Tin

ggi

227

88.1

236

84.3

257

91.8

Belte

d20

019

923

6

Unb

elte

d27

3721

Ove

rall

With

441

87.8

1.54

(1.0

5,2.

27)

515

86.4

1.60

(1.1

3,2.

28)

486

81.1

1.23

b

(0.8

9,1.

69)

Belte

d38

744

539

4

Unb

elte

d54

7092

With

out

463

82.3

472

79.9

494

77.7

Belte

d38

137

738

4

Unb

elte

d82

9511

0

a Odd

ratio

of 2

by

2 ta

ble

anal

yses

, b Not

sig

nific

ant

Tabl

e F1

.1

Com

paris

on o

n dr

iver

’s se

atbe

lt us

e st

atus

at t

he s

ites

with

and

with

out e

nfor

cem

ent a

ctiv

ities

Seat

belt

Use

Am

ong

Vehi

cle

Occ

upan

ts


77

a Odd

ratio

of 2

by

2 ta

ble

anal

yses

, b Not

sig

nific

ant

Stat

eSi

te o

f ob

serv

atio

nU

se s

tatu

s

Befo

reD

urin

gA

fter

N%

ORa

(95%

CI)

N%

ORa

(95%

CI)

N%

ORa

(95%

CI)

Pera

k

Bido

r17

578

.92.

50(1

.52,

4.12

)21

966

.21.

30b

(0.8

6,1.

96)

198

51.0

1.21

b

(0.8

1,1.

81)

Belte

d13

814

510

1

Unb

elte

d37

7497

Tapa

h17

759

.921

160

.221

846

.3

Belte

d10

612

710

1

Unb

elte

d71

8411

7

Joho

rPa

sir G

udan

g23

589

.82.

45(1

.38,

4.37

)24

877

.80.

96b

(0.6

1,1.

52)

231

87.9

1.36

(0.7

8,2.

37)

Belte

d21

119

320

3

Unb

elte

d24

5528

Kota

Tin

ggi

193

78.2

232

78.4

247

84.2

Belte

d15

118

220

8

Unb

elte

d42

5039

Ove

rall

With

410

85.1

2.52

(1.7

5,3.

63)

467

72.4

1.14

b

(0.8

4,1.

53)

429

70.9

1.23

(0.9

2,1.

65)

Belte

d34

933

830

4

Unb

elte

d61

129

125

With

out

370

69.5

443

69.8

465

66.5

Belte

d25

730

930

9

Unb

elte

d11

313

415

6

Tabl

e F1

.2

Com

paris

on o

n fro

nt p

asse

nger

s’ se

atbe

lt us

e st

atus

at t

he s

ites

with

and

with

out e

nfor

cem

ent a

ctiv

ities


78

a Odd

ratio

of 2

by

2 ta

ble

anal

yses

, b Not

sig

nific

ant

Stat

eSi

te o

f ob

serv

atio

nU

se s

tatu

s

Befo

reD

urin

gA

fter

N%

ORa

(95%

CI)

N%

ORa

(95%

CI)

N%

ORa

(95%

CI)

Pera

k

Bido

r21

921

.94.

09(2

.20,

7.69

)31

26.

70.

78 b

(0.4

2,1.

44)

290

3.8

0.87

b

(0.3

6,2.

08)

Belte

d48

2111

Unb

elte

d17

129

127

9

Tapa

h26

56.

434

18.

532

34.

3

Belte

d17

2914

Unb

elte

d24

831

230

9

Joho

rPa

sir G

udan

g44

310

.81.

21b

(0.7

2,2.

04)

437

5.9

0.67

b

(0.3

9,1.

14)

498

9.2

1.64

b

(0.9

9,2.

74)

Belte

d48

2646

Unb

elte

d39

541

145

2

Kota

Tin

ggi

295

9.2

498

8.6

497

5.8

Belte

d27

4329

Unb

elte

d26

845

546

8

Ove

rall

With

662

14.5

1.99

(1.3

4,2.

95)

749

6.3

0.71

b

(0.4

8,1.

06)

788

7.2

1.41

b

(0.9

2,2.

16)

Belte

d96

4757

Unb

elte

d56

670

273

1

With

out

560

7.9

839

8.6

820

5.2

Belte

d44

7243

Unb

elte

d51

676

777

7

Tabl

e F1

.3

Com

paris

on o

n re

ar p

asse

nger

s’ se

atbe

lt us

e st

atus

at t

he s

ites

with

and

with

out e

nfor

cem

ent a

ctiv

ities


79

Appendix G

Safety Level of Express Bus from Passengers’ Perspective

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

Service testing 5 0.8

No other transport 17 2.7

No preference 11 1.8

Total 625 100.0

Table G1.1 Reason of choosing bus operator

Table G1.2 Reason of passengers’ choosing the bus

Frequency Valid percent

Choice availability 91 13.1

Comfort 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

Time factor 116 16.6

No other transport 3 0.4

No preference 7 1.0

Brand trust 20 2.9

Total 697 100.0


80

Figure G2.1 The importance of travelling factors

1 0

Frequency Percent 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

Table G1.3 Passengers’ preference in travelling

Malaysian Institute of Road Safety ResearchLot 125-135, Jalan TKS 1, Taman Kajang Sentral43000 Kajang, Selangor Darul EhsanTel +603 8924 9200 Fax + 603 8733 2005Website www.miros.gov.my Email [email protected]

MRR 03/2012

Designed by: Publications Unit, MIROS

Research Report

Evaluation of the E�ectiveness of OPS BERSEPADU HARI RAYA 2011

Editors



Research Report

Evaluation of E�ectiveness ofOPS BERSEPADU HARI RAYA 2011


ops bersepadu hari raya 2011

Documents