توسعه و ارزیابی یک روش مدیریت ریسک برای سطوح مخصوص عابران پیاده
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|715||2009||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Safety Science, Volume 47, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 131–137
This paper describes the development and evaluation of the Pedestrian Surface (PS) priority indicator (PS priority indicator). This tool was developed to comply with Australian Standard AS 4360: 2004 (Risk Management). Pedestrian surfaces should be evaluated to identify hazards and assess the level of risk calculated in order to ensure that the surfaces do not have a significant level of risk. If a significant level of risk is present, then control measures should be implemented. Pedestrian surfaces for the purposes of this research are classified as same level surfaces (excluding stairways) where pedestrians on foot (or by wheelchair) travel from one place to another.
There is a duty of care to ensure (so far as is reasonably practicable) that the working environment is safe and without risks to health (OHS Act, Vic., 2004). This requires a strategic approach to conduct risk management activities on all aspects of workplace safety, including assessing the surfaces that pedestrians use to move through the environment. Pedestrians can be injured when using pedestrian surfaces in a number of ways, by slipping, tripping or falling, by colliding with a vehicle on a shared pedestrian/car roadway, or be injured if a pedestrian surface does not accommodate the special needs of pedestrians with disabilities. Injuries to pedestrians using pedestrian surfaces are on the increase. Data collected from the VWA Statistical Summary, reports that slips, trips and falls (STFs) account for approximately 18% of Workcover claims (VWA, 2001/2002). This figure has been increasing since 1992/1993 when just over 13% of claims recorded were from STFs. Also, pedestrians are one of the most vulnerable road users, and the largest road user group (Royalauto, 2005). Seventy-five percent of pedestrian fatalities occurred on metropolitan roads. Traditionally the design of road safety infrastructure has not taken the specific needs of pedestrians into account (Royalauto, 2005). The process for identifying hazards, assessing risks and evaluating control measures should comply with the requirements in the Risk Management standard (AS 4360: 2004). The key to the standard is that hazards with high risk levels, must have control measures implemented. The identification of hazards must incorporate information gathered from a variety of sources and involve consultation with users. The assessment of risk must be systematic. An assessment tool should calculate a level of risk for the identified hazard. High scores will indicate to the assessor that an appropriate control strategy is required to control the problem. Then, the implementation of control measures should be based on the hierarchy of control relevant to the degree of risk. The aim of this research was to review existing hazard identification and risk assessment tools and use their methodology to develop the PS priority indicator. This tool is a comprehensive risk assessment methodology to be used on pedestrian surfaces that priorities areas of significant risk. This tool will assist in the identification and assessment of surface hazards, and environmental hazards on pedestrian surfaces. It is anticipated that the tool will be flexible and will have potential for use in a range of locations and surface types.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Existing identification and assessment strategies for pedestrian surfaces fall short of the requirements outlined in the risk management standard (AS 4360: 2004). Therefore a novel approach to risk management for pedestrian surfaces was needed. The PS priority indicator was developed to comply with the Risk Management Standard, and will identify hazards, assess risks and outline risk control measures. The PS priority indicator is a single page assessment form that identifies all hazards associated with pedestrian surfaces, calculates a risk score, and provides guidance on appropriate risk control measures. The PS priority indicator does not require any specialized equipment or meters to conduct assessments on pedestrian surfaces. The benefits of the PS priority indicator are that the tool uses key phrases using the environment and surface factors. The tool then evaluates a risk score and then separates the minor acceptable risks from the major risks using a low, medium, high risk scoring system. Once the risk score is determined, the PS priority indicator outlines practical risk control strategies that can be selected to treat the risk using the control actions table. However, the evaluation phase of the PS priority indicator has only progressed as far as an internal validation for the validity, flexibility and reliability of the tool. Further assessment and testing is required, however preliminary conclusions are: Before using the PS priority indicator assessors should ensure that they have a basic level of competency and have an understanding of the risk management methodology. The assessments should also be completed by the one assessor to ensure that the scores are comparable. A limitation of the PS priority indicator is the inability to adequately assess single hazards by the risk score alone. It should be noted that like a checklist, the PS priority indicator with the selection of a 3 in any single section highlights to the assessor that there is a hazard present to a great degree. It may be a future requirement in the PS priority indicator to request an assessor to implement risk controls for any single score of a 3 for any factor. The positive applications of the PS priority indicator are that it is able to quantify risks on a given area to both indicate a risk level on that area, and compare the risk scores across a range of areas. The PS priority indicator is also able to assist users to understand the risks posed by a pedestrian surface based on all parameters, not just individual measurements such as slip resistance. The assessments of the surfaces can be used as • a floor profile; • an individual assessment; • a comparison of two surfaces and • a surface pre- and post-works to determine the reduction of risk. With further evaluation, the PS priority indicator may have applications for use as: • An individual based assessment to determine the risk rating of a particular area. • A strategic assessment of an entire area to evaluate priorities for flooring repairs. • A way to highlight particular issues with floor surfaces such as disabled access, etc. • An assessment of the effectiveness of control measures. The PS priority indicator is not limited to use only at the site that was selected for the research, there are potential applications in other industries and locations. Using methodology of the PS priority indicator to develop risk management tools for other applications would be a project for further study.