運輸署助理署長電台訪問談巴士乘客強制戴安全帶新例
[複製鏈接]
|
似乎你先係唔(願意)聽書嗰個⋯⋯
消防處都有強制大廈配備滅火筒甚至消防喉轆，但都唔係強制市民發生火警時幫手救火。安全裝置強制安裝同強唔強制使用無必然關係，而係要睇返呢樣安全裝置實際應用嘅可行程度，幾時要用，需唔需要強制用。私家車、的士、小巴無企位，上得車就係要坐，咁要強制戴安全帶無懸念，但巴士有企位，乘客仲可以揀坐定企，咁搭幾個站就落車嘅人，原本無強制戴安全帶佢都可能會見位就坐，但以後因為嫌麻煩而唔坐，咁呢條法例就反過嚟係增加乘客風險。然之後又有人會衝出嚟話修例強制乘客有位必坐，甚至到時車長仲要幫手確認乘客有無坐穩先開得車，產生更多問題。
吸煙問題，建議你Google完「全球吸煙率」同「吸煙率最高的國家」望吓個比率先再考慮點回應我。
|
評分
-
| 參與人數 1 | aPower +3 |
HugeC +10 |
收起
理由
|
 siupy
| + 3 |
+ 10 |
認同乘客因為嫌麻煩而唔坐，結果法例反過嚟. |
查看全部評分
|
|
Volvo B8L
|
|
|
|
|
|
本帖最後由 castanopsis 於 2025-11-15 12:55 編輯
呀版友，幾時有講錯嘢潛水
只係手頭上正職大把更重要既嘢要處理，無時間同上面兩位版友泥漿摔角
我估好多版友見到堆千字文都嚇怕咗，你估沉默大多數真係支持立例咩....
因為有統計證明巴士意外率高過私家車
以此為前提巴士想寬鬆有難度
上面篇論文都清楚證明
就算唔扣安全帶，巴士乘客都死亡率都低過私家車9-66倍不等
呢點上面無論乜嘢立場既版友都接受咗
Traveling by Bus Instead of Car on Urban Major Roads: Safety Benefits for Vehicle Occupants, Pedestrians, and Cyclists
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-017-0222-6
"According to several studies, the rate of death is lower for travel on public transport than that in cars. For example, in the USA, fatality rate for car occupants were found to be 23 times higher than those for bus occupants, per 100 million person-trips [3]. Another study found fatality rate to be as high as 66 times greater for car occupants than those for bus occupants per passenger-mile traveled [4]. Similarly in Australia, car occupants have nine times greater rate of death than bus occupants, per hour traveled [5]. In Europe, car occupants have ten times greater rate of death compared to bus occupants and 20 times greater rate of death compared to train occupants, per kilometer traveled [6]. The non-fatal injury rate is also higher for car occupants compared to that for bus occupants: 4.3 times higher per kilometer traveled in Norway [7] and 5.0 times higher per person-trips in the USA [3]. "
唯一一條巴士高過私家車既數字，係老人家車內行走跌倒
斷估你唔係講緊呢樣掛..... |
評分
-
查看全部評分
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
唔知上面即係邊度，成五十頁有一堆無營養討論緊制水問題，唔太想搵
如果以下已經討論過歡迎 quote 返出嚟
Quote 得一份 study 嘅 background studies 唔 quote 埋同一段另一半？
These studies aggregated data for entire countries or groups of countries and therefore cannot describe the potential spatial variation across regions and contexts (e.g., urban versus rural). Furthermore, at the country level, no distinction is usually made between different types of busses (e.g., school bus, intercity, urban transit) [3, 6, 8], except for one study which only looked at fatality rates [9].
人地擺落 background 就正正係其他 study 有不足，唔係做義工幫你整合人地嘅 research
我記得前面應該討論過香港巴士模式嘅獨特性？mixed intercity & urban transit 呢點應該唔洗我講？
另外 conclusion 雖然係話巴士比較安全，但同時間份 study 自己都好 aware 強調要留意路線性質上嘅分別：
This study shows that city bus is a safer mode than car, for vehicle occupants but also for pedestrians and cyclists traveling along these bus routes. Although bus travel is safer on all specific routes, there is great variation in the safety benefits at the route level. The variation in injury rates and safety benefits of public transit is likely caused by road geometry and other environmental factors; disaggregate analyses at the route level are necessary to determine their effects. The results at the route level will provide vital information for cities to properly orient the implementation of environmental changes as preventative strategies to reduce the risk of injury for all road users.
佢 focus 係在於 city bus / urban transit 如果照攞 conclusion 套落香港係咪穩妥？
實務上我所知各巴士公司自 872 後安全部係有被要求每條路線做獨立分析
當中會唔會有每條路線分析安全帶效用我唔知啦
但實務上又好難執行到跟路線/路段風險程度強制
咁咪唯有一刀切
|
評分
-
查看全部評分
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
原本好多乘客幾分鐘/幾個站都會坐
依家因為怕麻煩走去企
例如一個上年紀的叔叔/嬸嬸買完餸，
左手一袋魚+一袋菜+一袋生果
右手拎雞蛋+一盒燒肉
樓下隔離個位無人坐放到嘢就扣
隔離有人得單丁位，雙手拎野你叫佢地點扣安全帶？
放地下一陣剎車袋橙唔知碌咗去邊
唯有唔坐走去企
法例反而製造了風險
|
評分
-
查看全部評分
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
本帖最後由 s3n370 於 2025-11-15 12:14 編輯
Man@MFHK 發表於 2025-11-15 03:49
似乎你先係唔(願意)聽書嗰個⋯⋯
消防處都有強制大廈配備滅火筒甚至消防喉轆，但都唔係強制市民發生火警 ...
你嘅回應字面無錯，但係仔細睇唔難搵到分別：
- 安全帶係預防措施，無事無幹先至用，唔通去到撞完車都仲要戴住咩？
- 你諗下強制用，個個都要去救一救火撳一撳警鐘先至走人會發生乜事？
好多十年前好多人無事無幹都用消防喉轆，多到要禁添，點解？偷水用囉。
及後大廈消防喉轆，一係要消防員接駁先至有水，一係撳著警鐘先至開泵。
事實上呢D裝置係預受訓過甚至係消防員用，
安全帶係預所有乘客。而業主有法律責任確保裝置正常運作架
至於搭幾個站，我一早講佐市區流水唔戴未必太大問題，
企位亦一早講佐難以解決。
唔好再亂扣帽子，ok？
你不如答番我假如煙民數目真係大嘅情況啦。
提提你，鐵路客量已經超越巴士啦，咁係咪可以用人數去合理化件事呢？明顯唔會係。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
本帖最後由 siupy 於 2025-11-15 20:57 編輯
我唔覺得限高速公路扣安全帶
執行上會比一刀切難好多
不停有客上落既1A響彌敦道
無可能比屯公行緊既268X執法容易
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
喂
唔好次次引經據典自說自話再噏埋啲廢話去攻擊稻草人就當駁咗先啦
呢度邊有人反對巴士整體風險低過私家車啫？
|
評分
-
查看全部評分
|
|
小學雞連鬧交都係執人口水尾
|
|
|
|
|
|
執法難唔同執行難
執行講緊到底點樣釐定咩路段要做、乘客點樣清晰得知需要扣安全帶等等
一刀切有就扣理應係最簡單明瞭方案
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
本帖最後由 ccchhhuuunnn 於 2025-11-15 18:47 編輯
siupy 發表於 2025-11-15 17:19
我唔覺得限高速公路扣安全帶
執行上會比一刀切難好多
不停有客上落既1A響彌敦道
唔使太stick into要依照日常運件嘅規律，公路定市區道路係無分別
警方執法就一定係叫司機停埋一邊先做嘢，最多盡量唔喺巴士站上落前後路段/時間吹雞做嘢減少跌入尷尬位
就算站密最多偏向唔揀嗰啲線
一刀切完佢寧願個flexibility 係長官自己執法到
其實大部份法例都係咁
突擊檢查一係揀嚴重嘅地方 一係揀容易做嘅地方 一係兩者都係
你就算有銀行戶口都唔會成日有長官查你係咪洗黑錢
控煙辦都係去例如先達呢啲黑點執法，好少去新界山旮旯嘅禁煙巴士總站執法
橫掂佢本身都想全部禁煙同全部安全帶一樣，佢執唔執法點執法邊啲位執得多啲少啲就留返執法嗰個諗㗎啦
現實上由頭到尾都冇人執法嘅咪繼續阻嚇作用
唔使鑽牛角尖話要公平又要分開又盛
呢個係社會現實，唔關安全帶事
唔好又用埋啲小學生「佢都曳做乜唔捉佢」嘅理論
有啲嘢可以exemption 但呢個位唔見得容易去exclude |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
本帖最後由 kay 於 2025-11-15 19:04 編輯
https://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=2238334&pid=5335409
同上面既野無抵觸上面都係數字黎
你唔反駁即係認為無問題啦
風險同成效兩個維度既野本身無得比較
你想砌我唔岩就應該用風險說明我引錯野
都已經唔只一個版友成日話你胡亂比較
仲有
我一早講左我同你無話題傾
因為你講大話老屈我唔認錯唔道歉
仲有WARN多句
你以前D不當行為都涉嫌違反多條站規
一個版規都唔尊重唔駛傾
P.S.睇清楚我簽名檔我唔係講笑
|
|
|
抵制不當行為站友
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
|
