Fatal traffic accidents in the Turkish construction industry

Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322 www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Fatal traYc accidents in the Turkish construction industry Ugur Müngen, G. Emre Gürcanli ¤ Technical University of Istanbul, Civil Engineering Faculty, Construction Management Department, 80626 Maslak/Istanbul, Turkey Received 30 July 2004

Abstract Occupational safety as well as highway traYc safety has a poor performance record in Turkey. Especially in the construction industry Wgures are dramatic. Falls, contact with electricity and accidents involving heavy equipment are the three foremost causes of occupational fatalities in the construction sector. In Turkey, the majority of companies are small or middle sized contractors; and due to the nature of this industry it requires paying more attention to safety management practices. It should also be noted that the number of registered workers in the construction industry is low. Unfortunately, the occupational injury records according to the Social Insurance Institution General Directorate solely include casualties among registered workers. Additionally, oYcial statistics only give the number of total injuries, fatalities or permanent incapacity cases classiWed according to the diVerent industries. The Wrst attempt to classify the construction injuries in Turkish construction industry came in 1993 [Müngen, U., 1993. Türkiye’de Inoaat Io Kazalarínín Analizi ve Io Güvenligi Sorunu, Yayínlanmamío Doktora Tezi, Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi]. After this study, the Social Insurance Institution General Directorate archives were regularly visited and insurance claim records for construction injuries were separated. In the scope of this study, about 40,000 occupational accidents in all industries have been investigated. 4347 of these injuries occurred at construction sites, 1774 of them are fatal injury records. From the fatal cases 168 traYc accidents were taken into consideration and the analysis and classiWcation of these accidents were done according to the way they happened, the type of construction site and the type of occupation of the victim. It should *

Corresponding author. Fax: +90 212 285 65 87. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.E. Gürcanli).

0925-7535/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2005.06.002

300

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

be stated that the study not only focused on highway work zones, but also on all types of construction work. The hazards for pedestrians, drivers, equipment operators and auxiliary personnel such as Xaggers were identiWed and according to the results obtained, and taking into account the conditions of Turkish construction industry certain suggestions are made.  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: TraYc accident; Fatal injuries; Pedestrians; Construction equipment; Occupational safety

1. Introduction Turkey, a rapidly developing country, is a bridge between Asia and Europe regarding its social and economical structure. These transitional factors interacting between diVerent cultures and social economical structures inXuence the construction industry especially. In the international arena, many Turkish construction companies partake in contracts for large-scaled projects and they are considered as very competitive. However, domestically, many construction projects are realized by small or middle scaled companies and, in practice, these companies do not give adequate importance to occupational safety. Consequently, compared with the western countries, the number of fatal injuries and incidence rates are high. A variety of indices can be used to examine the impact of injuries. For fatal injuries, fatality frequency/count or rates are commonly examined (Leigh, 1995; Toscano, 1997; Bailer et al., 1998). Counts can be analysed in a relative manner by comparing the percentage of fatal injuries occurring in an occupation relative to the percentage employed in an occupation (Toscano and Windau, 1993). In addition, other indices can be derived from these values such as the index of relative risk, the ratio of the fatal injury rate for a particular group relative to the rate for all workers (Toscano, 1997). Rates can be constructed relative to employment counts or hours worked which can have a noticeable impact for younger or older workers (Ruser, 1998). In Table 1, the fatal incidence rates of diVerent countries in the construction industry are shown. From this table, in comparison to western countries, it can obviously be seen that fatalities are very high in the Turkish construction industry. Adding to this already negative situation, traYc accidents in Turkey are also cause for alert. Two indicators are regularly used as a yardstick to compare road safety in one country with another: traYc safety and personal safety. TraYc safety—sometimes indicated in terms of fatality rate or casualty rate—is a measure of how safely the road transport function is performed. It is commonly measured in terms of deaths per 10,000 registered motor vehicles or per 100 million vehicle kilometers travelled. The other—personal safety—indicates the degree to which traYc accidents aVect the safety of the population. The number of traYc fatalities per 100,000 population (mortality) could be considered as a public health indicator: (Wegman et al., 2002). In Table 2, the numbers of fatalities for diVerent countries per 100,000 population and per 100 million vehicle-kilometres travelled are revealed. Deaths per 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled column in the table shows the seriousness of the number

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

301

Table 1 Fatal incidence rates in construction in some certain countries 1992–2000

United Kingdom Denmark Germany Switzerland Poland Hungary France USAa Egypt Italy Spain Turkey

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Average

7.8 5.0 15.7 13.0 12.3 41 24.0 20.9 14.0 26.0 32.0 28.0 103.5

8.9 6.0 17.4 11.2 14.2 43 22.3 20.3 14.0 22.0 25.0 29.0 80.5

6.8 10.0 11.7 10.5 14.2 15.4 18.6 21.1 15.0 31.0 26.0 30.8 54.7

8.0 11.0 9.6 9.5 13.6 13.4 16.6 20.8 15.0 34.0 25.0 31.4 40.8

7.4 8.0 8.5 12.2 13.0 14.7 19.0 19.8 14.0 30.0 23.0 29.9 66.9

5.7 8.0 7.9 13.2 19.5 16.4 16.7 19.5 14.0 18.0 23.0 31.3 50.3

4.4 9.0 7.5 8.0 14.3 17.0 15.9 19.6 14.0 17.0 24.0 27.4 41.2

5.7 6.0 7.2 7.8 N/A 18.6 13.9 18.8 15.0 18.0 22.0 25.6 38.0

6.4 8.0 6.3 6.9 17.0 22.4 N/A 17.4 14.0 15.0 20.0 22.9 48.6

6.8 7.9 10.2 10.3 14.8 16.8 18.4 19.8 14.3 23.4 24.4 28.5 58.3

Source: ILO Yearbook of Labour Statistics, 2002. a The calculation methods of injury rates diVer among the countries. Frequency rates are generally calculated as the number of new cases of injury (fatal and non-fatal) during the calendar year divided by the total number of hours worked by workers in the reference group during the year, multiplied bay 1,000,000. Incidence rates are calculated as the number of new cases of injury (fatal and non-fatal) during the calendar year divided by the number of workers in the reference group during the year, multiplied by 100,000. It can be also calculated as (in USA for example) number of injuries per 100 full time workers, that is, number of injuries divided bay total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year, multiplied by 200,000 that represents base for 100 equivalent full time workers, working 40 h per week 50 weeks per year. In this study the former deWnition of incidence rate is used. For USA Wrst values are calculated according to this deWnition. In calculation, seasonally adjusted employment data is used. These data comes from US Bureau of Labour Statistics Database. Second row for USA has values from ILO Yearbook and calculated according to 100 full time workers.

of fatal traYc accidents in Turkey. The Wgure for Turkey is nearly three times that of the nearest Wgure. The analyses of occupational fatalities in construction have focused on general causes (Buskin and Paulozzi, 1987; Sorock et al., 1993; Kisner and Fosbroke, 1994; Robinson et al., 1995; Ore and Stout, 1996; Pollack et al., 1996; Hinze et al., 1998; Dalton, 2002), speciWc external causes, for example machinery (Pratt et al., 1996), trench cave-ins (Suruda et al., 1988), hand tools (Trent and Wyant, 1990), falls (Suruda et al., 1995; Cattledge et al., 1996; Johnson et al., 1998), electrocutions (Ore and Casini, 1996; McCann et al., 2003) and speciWc occupations, such as labourers (Burkhart et al., 1993; Stern et al., 1995), painters (Suruda, 1992) and only focused on pedestrian fatalities (Janicak, 2001). Although occupational injuries caused by motor vehicles have been researched including cost of casualties (Trawén et al., 2002) and focused on roadway construction work zones (Sorock et al., 1996) detailed research in construction industry are few (Ore and Fosbroke, 1997). According to Turkish legislation, traYc accidents on construction sites are accepted as occupational accidents. However, when considering the way of occurrence it can be concluded that they mostly share characteristics with ordinary traYc accidents. The aim of this study is to point out the importance of fatal traYc accidents on

302

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

Table 2 Comparison of road safety (traYc safety and personal safety) in diVerent countries, 1999

Turkey Czech Republic Hungary France Italy Germany Denmark Switzerland USA United Kingdom

The number of traYc fatalities per 100,000 population

Deaths per 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled (highways and other roads)

9.2 14.1 12.9 14.3 11.0 9.5 9.7 8.2 15.3 6.0

11.98 3.61 1.53b 1.53 1.34b 1.22 1.12a 1.08 0.96 0.81c

Source: Comments on highway traYc accidents in Turkey and in the world. Turkish General Directorate of Security, TraYc Studies Center, 2001. a 1998. b Only highways. c 1997.

construction sites by analysing 168 cases according to the way of occurrence, type of the construction sites, and the type of occupation and then to discuss the causes of traYc accidents on sites and how to improve safety practices in Turkish construction industry.

2. Scope and methods The study forms part of research carried out by the Construction Management Department of Technical University of Istanbul. The Wrst author has a doctorate dissertation on Analysis of Occupational Accidents in Turkish Construction Industry and the second is studying on a doctorate thesis on Occupational Safety Management and Standardisation Model for Construction Firms. In the department, research on occupational safety and management has been ongoing. In the scope of this study, about 40,000 occupational accidents in all industries have been investigated. These records were taken from the Social Insurance Institution General Directorate’s archives in Ankara. 4347 of the injuries occurred on construction sites. The data are from accidents that occurred in various regions of Turkey between 1969 and 1999; 1774 of the Wles have fatal injury records. All injury records around Turkey are collected by the General Directory to facilitate the process of compensation claims and other legal issues. In this archive, only the cases whose legal procedures are completed are stored. Details from these records were analysed and, based on the evidence, certain conclusions regarding the injuries in construction industry were derived. Many of these reports are in tabulated form, but narrative texts from insurance claims are also used in our analyses. As Sorock et al. (1996) indicated that insurance claims accident narrative data can be used to identify

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

303

and describe crashes in construction work zones. One advantage of this claim-based analysis is its comprehensiveness. That is, these crashes may be reported more often that reported to the police due to the fact that they are primarily for reimbursement purposes. By analysing the records, fatal injuries in construction were classiWed according to the main causes of accidents. In Turkey, there is no proper classiWcation or documentation system for the causes of industrial accidents and especially for the construction industry, data collection is insuYcient. In addition, the number of unregistered workers in construction industry is at very high levels. Due to these negative factors, many of the injuries are not recorded and documented. The Social Insurance Institution General Directorate’s oYcial statistics only give the number of total injuries, fatalities or permanent incapacity cases by industries. From this data, incidence rates can be calculated as per 100,000 employees. Incidence rates for Turkey for all industries and the construction industry are shown in Table 3. The Wrst attempt to classify the construction injuries in Turkish construction industry was done in 1993 (Müngen, 1993). After this study, the Social Insurance Institution General Directory archives were regularly visited and insurance claim records for construction injuries were separated. The analysis of all these records has Table 3 Incidence rates in total, for permanent incapability cases and fatalities between 1981 and 2001 Incidence rates in total per 10 5

Incidence rates of permanent incapability cases per 105

Incidence rates of fatal injuries per 105

All industries

Construction industry

All industries

Construction industry

All industries

Construction industry

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

7409 6496 6243 6259 5676 5357 5517 5470 7875 4522 3621 3673 2755 2341 2112 1952 2147 1928 1571 1495 1481

5570 4834 4723 4887 4292 4399 4926 5475 5007 4928 4166 4232 3047 1818 1502 1421 1695 1340 958 1030 1241

103.2 83.1 111.3 100.6 97.7 81.1 86.2 69.1 73.2 80.6 102.0 90.9 99.2 81.6 71.8 72.8 95.5 80.8 68.7 36.3 44.7

88.1 77.7 102.6 78.4 70.4 65.6 77.1 75.8 83.5 88.0 106.5 109.2 96.4 62.4 57.2 54.6 64.4 66.5 67.2 52.4 75.8

42.1 36.7 46.0 36.3 33.6 39.4 29.1 37.0 35.2 37.5 45.3 46.8 38.1 30.3 22.1 33.5 32.2 26.3 26.9 23.4 20.6

71.7 71.5 83.2 65.9 61.7 70.6 56.9 76.8 75.9 87.0 97.1 103.5 80.5 54.7 40.8 66.9 50.4 41.2 38.0 49.8 50.0

Average

4091

3404

Years

82.40

77.13

34.21

Source: Social Insurance Institution General Directory Yearbooks 1981–2001.

66.38

304

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

started to facilitate a better understanding of the nature of safety in Turkish construction industry. The main causes of injuries with subgroups, the way of occurrences, the type of work when accidents occurs, etc. are clearly exposed. (Müngen, 1997) The main documents included in the SII archives come from the criminal and labour courts. When an accident occurs whether claimant exits or not, an investigation is executed by the public prosecutor. If the public prosecutor decides that one or more person is faulty, then the documents sent to criminal court and a comprehensive oYcial investigation reaches a verdict about who is responsible for the accident. The Wnal verdict is regularly based on an expert witness report that distributes the responsibility as a fraction of eight (for example; site engineer, injured worker and supervisor is responsible for the accident 2/8, 3/8 and 3/8 respectively). Labour courts are responsible for the compensation issues. Here again, in many cases the Wnal verdict is reached by the aid of an expert witness report that distributes the responsibility of an accident by percentage. The records in the archive includes judicial documents below: (a) Statements made by witnesses and defendant. (b) Preliminary oYcial record and drawing of the location which the accident occurred. (c) Accident report written by employer. (d) Statements made by the victim of the accident and his/her relatives. (e) Statements made by the employees (site engineer, safety manager, chief engineer of the prime contractor and many times subcontractor) which are responsible for the safety in the company. (f) Investigation record and photos. (g) Contracts between prime and subcontractors that indicates the responsibilities regarding safety measures. (h) Technical speciWcations of the work done and equipments being used. (i) Expert witness report(s). If the scope is narrowed down to only traYc accident on construction sites, the total number of fatal accidents comes to a number of 168. Analysis and classiWcation of these accidents are done according to the way of occurrence, the type of the construction site and the type of occupation. According to the results obtained, and taking into account the conditions of Turkish construction industry certain suggestions are made. When analyzing these documents and focusing on the traYc accidents on site, it is easy to derive broad information about the fatalities. For example, it can be understood that fatalities are caused by the negligence of basic and ordinary safety measures, carelessness and absentmindedness of the workers (especially when operating in conWned spaces), level of training and consciousness of the workers as well as site engineers, poor traYc organisation levels on construction sites. Narrative texts by witnesses or hospital reports, however, are not suYcient to comment on all cases and in some Wles there are no investigation records or photos. However, from the overall picture of the records, it is possible to derive conclusions to explain the immediate and contributing causes of the traYc accidents on site.

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

305

The term “traYc accidents on construction sites” refers to accidents that occurred within the boundaries of or close proximity to the site and sharing speciWc characteristics of ordinary traYc accidents. However, it is diYcult to deWne the boundaries of construction sites, especially if the construction work is carried out along a line such as a road, railway or channel. For these types of sites, it is assumed that the traYc accidents occurred in the working and movement areas or areas that are in close proximity to moving traYc. Additionally, accidents caused by heavy equipment are classiWed as another group, but incidents caused by trucks are included in the main group of traYc accidents on site.

3. Results After the analysis of fatal accidents on construction sites, the main causes of the injuries on sites are put forward. According to the analysis of the records, traYc accidents are the fourth main cause of injuries in construction; and due to its high ranking it should be focused on (Table 4). In the study of Bailer et al. the fatalities from the National Traumatic Occupational Fatality (USA) database serve as the basis for examining external cause of death code speciWc rates and these causes of injury are examined across all industries and occupations. For the construction industry the data in Table 5 is given. In the table above, the total cases of motor vehicle collision with pedestrian and motor vehicle collision with other motor vehicle are 1066% and 8.6% in the industry. By comparing the two tables, it is seen that there is a resemblance for Turkish and US construction industries according to the traYc accidents on sites. In Table 4 the other types refer to material spread (metallic particles especially), squeezing between objects, suVocations, burns, etc. The main causes of injuries are also classiWed into subgroups, and these main causes are investigated according to diVerent criteria. (Müngen, 1993). The cases analysed are also classiWed by the way of occurrence. The traYc accidents on construction sites have the characteristics revealed in Table 6. Table 4 Main causes of fatal injuries in construction industry from investigated 1969–1999 records Cause Falls Contact with electricity Heavy equipment accidents TraYc accident on site Injured by falling object Cave-ins (while or after excavation) Building/structure collapse Fire or explosion Other types Total

Frequency 694 244 184 168 167 105 96 41 75 1774

Percent 39.1 13.8 10.4 9.5 9.4 5.9 5.4 2.3 4.2

306

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

Table 5 Top 10 injury external causes (E-codes) within construction industry ordered by frequency for occupational fatal injuries occurring in years 1983–1994 in USA E-Code

Injury description

Deaths

925 919 882 881 916 814 884 913 812 888

Accident caused by electric current Machinery accident Fall from building or other structure Fall from ladder or scaVolding Struck accidentally by falling object Motor vehicle collision with pedestrian Other fall from one level to another Accidental mechanical suVocation Motor vehicle collision with other motor vehicle Other and unspeciWed fall

Total for industry

Rate per 100,000

1736 1630 1272 927 908 660 499 461 406 398

2.0 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5

12,408

14.3

(Bailer et al., 2003). Table 6 The ways of occurrence of traYc accidents on construction sites Code description according to the International ClassiWcation of Diseases (ICD-D) E-codes for motor vehicle accidentsa

The ways of occurrence

E 814 Motor vehicle traYc accident involving collision with pedestrian

Crushed/run-over by highway vehicle Crushed/run-over by train

E 816 Motor vehicle traYc accident due to loss of control, without collision E 817 Non-collision motor vehicle traYc accident while boarding or alighting E 818 Other non-collision motor vehicle traYc accident E 813 Motor vehicle traYc accident involving collision with other vehicle E 819 Motor vehicle traYc accident of unspeciWed nature

Crushed/run-over by manoeuvring vehicle Crushed/run-over by vehicles entering the site Motor vehicle rollover Fall from moving vehicle while getting on/oV Fall from moving vehicle Motor vehicle traYc accident involving collision with other vehicle Unknown cases Total cases

a

Frequency

Percent

46

27.4

32

19.1

21

12.50

11

6.55

17

10.12

16

9.52

15

8.93

5

2.98

5

2.98

168

Source: World Health Organization (1977).

Here, highway vehicles refer to the vehicles those have no relation with construction projects; for example automobiles, buses passing by on the highway that crush or the run-over of a highway or channel project worker. However, on site, trucks or other motor vehicles are classiWed as maneuvering vehicles and this classiWcation does not include heavy equipment. On the other hand, there is a debate on crush/run

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

307

over by trains. Due to the fact that maintenance or repair projects are performed by the State Railway Authority (General Directorate of Turkish State Railways) and trains are also operated and owned by the same Authority, the status of the trains are under discussion. There is a diVerence of opinion on whether they are included in maintenance projects or not. It should be also emphasised that for many years no new investment in railways have been made and the only work executed are maintenance or repair projects. From the data it is not possible to classify vehicle collision with pedestrians separately as crashes and run-overs. Narrative texts by witnesses or hospital reports exist in some insurance claims; but they are not suYcient to comment on all cases. Due to this deWciency, these cases are classiWed into one certain group. The cases grouped into “other types” are the cases that are not possible to be included by other main causes. Some interesting cases included in “other types” are: • A truck parked on an inclined road runs over its driver. • A driver squeezed between a truck and a loader on an inclined road. • A worker squeezed between trailer and wall while attempting to get on the moving tractor-trailer. • A worker squeezed between truck and wall while attempting get oV from body of the truck. In the investigation, 1774 fatal injuries and 168 fatal traYc accidents were grouped by occupation (Table 7). According to this analysis, the proportion of traYc accidents in fatal cases for each occupation and its order of importance are presented and discussed (Table 8). Table 7 TraYc accident fatalities by occupation Occupation

Drivers Other operators and co-drivers Other personnel Heavy construction equipment operators Superintendent personnel Unskilled labourers Technical personnel’s Craftsman Total

Total fatalities Ni

Percent of all fatal cases Ni/
N (%)

TraYc accident caused fatalities (ni)

Percent of traYc accident caused fatalities by occupation ni/
n (%)

For each occupation, percent of traYc accident caused fatalities in total fatalities, ni/Ni (%)

39 74

2.2 4.2

12 14

7.1 8.3

30.8 18.9

44 87

2.5 4.9

8 11

4.8 6.5

18.2 12.6

73

4.1

9

5.4

12.3

972 62 423

54.8 3.5 23.8

103 5 6

61.3 3.0 3.6

10.6 8.1 1.4

1774

168

308

Occupation

Falls

Contact with electricity

Heavy TraYc equipment accident accidents on site

Injured by Cave-ins Building or Fire or Other falling object (while or after structure explosion types excavation) collapse

Total

3 (4.1)

3 (4.1)

12 (30.8) 43 (58.1)

12 (30.8) 14 (18.9)

4 (10.3) 4 (5.4)

1 (2.6) 2 (2.7)

3 (4.1)

10 (25.6) 2 (2.7)

39 74

12 (27.3) 5 (5.7)

5 (11.4) 1 (1.1)

1 (2.3) 49 (56.3)

8 (18.2) 11 (12.6)

1 (2.3) 9 (10.3)

1 (2.3) 1 (1.1)

4 (9.1) 7 (8.)

12 (27.3) 4 (4.6)

44 87

Drivers Other operators and co-drivers Other personnel Heavy construction equipment operators Unskilled labourers Superintendent personnel Technical personnel’s Craftsman

381 (39.2)a 23 (31.5)

123 (12.7) 13 (17.8)

56 (5.8) 4 (5.5)

103 (10.6) 9 (12.3)

96 (9.9) 11 (15.1)

92 (9.5) 1 (1.4)

70 (7.2) 1 (1.4)

22 (2.3) 3 (4.1)

29 (3.0) 8 (11.0)

972 73

23 (37.1) 247 (58.4)

10 (16.1) 89 (21.0)

6 (9.7) 13 (3.1)

5 (8.1) 6 (1.4)

9 (14.5) 33 (7.8)

7 (1.7)

4 (6.5) 21 (5.0)

2 (.5)

5 (8.1) 5 (1.2)

62 423

Total

694

244

184

168

167

105

96

41

75

a

1774

Figures in the parenthesis are percentages (fatal injuries for each occupation resulting from each main incidents/total fatal cases for each occupation £ 100).

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

Table 8 Frequency and percent of leading causes of fatal injuries by occupation

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

309

From the Wgures in the tables, certain remarkable points may be emphasised. Unskilled labourers were victims of 54.1% of all fatal accidents and 61.3% of traYc accidents on sites caused their deaths. It should also be pointed out that the degree of traYc caused fatalities for unskilled labourers; 10.7% of these fatalities were caused by traYc accidents and it ranks third. In the Turkish construction industry, most unskilled labourers are from rural areas and many of them are part of a cheap temporary labour force., Therefore, unskilled labourers are routinely employed in skilled positions. The lack of training and experience causes diYculties in improvement of safety conditions and the culture on construction sites. Unskilled labourers have a higher risk of being exposed to traYc accidents because of the location of their activities. They walk or carry material on roads open to traYc; and often, they travel (between diVerent working areas or between material stores and construction site) on trucks in unsafe conditions. It is obvious that the main cause of falling from moving vehicles, falling from moving vehicles while getting on/oV and motor vehicle rollovers (totally 28.7%) is because workers travel in trucks without any safety precautions. For craftsmen it may be said that, the risk of being exposed to traYc accidents is very low. As it can be seen in the tables, although craftsmen are the victims of 23.8% of all fatal cases, they exposed to only 4% of fatal traYc accidents. Additionally, six of 423 (3.8%) fatal cases are caused by traYc accidents. A total of 87 fatal cases were detected for heavy construction equipment operators from the Wles examined, but only 11 of them were caused by traYc accidents. It should be noted that heavy equipment accidents are classiWed in a diVerent category. By categorizing traYc accidents as to sites or heavy equipment cases, only collisions with other heavy equipment or diVerent vehicles and collisions with pedestrians while the equipment is in the traYc but not working are included. Injuries where heavy equipment is involved are excluded. TraYc-caused fatalities are 12.6% of all fatal cases for heavy construction equipment operators; and the third highest risk for fatality. Due to the resemblance of their activities, co-operators and co-drivers are classiWed into one group. Co-operators and co-drivers are victims of to 4.2% of all fatal cases, and 8.3% of traYc accidents on sites which result in the death of a member of this group. On the other hand, traYc accidents carry a high risk for co-operators and co-drivers; 18.2% are injured fatally, and after accidents that involve heavy equipment, it ranks second. Especially, when aiding a maneuvering vehicle at hazardous places where no proper lighting exists or in conWned spaces where movement of a vehicle is diYcult, they a risk of being crushed or run-over by a truck or other vehicles exist . Superintendent and auxiliary personnel’s (supervisors, site guards, watchmen, and Xaggers) deaths resulting from motor vehicle incidents are 5.4% of whole number of traYc incidents and 12.3% of this group are injured fatally by a traYc accident on site. The personnel in this group undertake their trips mostly on the site due to their control and supervision activities, and walk on site roads that have motor vehicle traYc. Moreover, workers who Xag or direct traYc are exposed to the risk of being struck by a vehicle or equipment especially in conWned areas. Most of the superintendent

310

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

and auxiliary staV deaths resulting from crushes are caused by run-overs by a motor vehicle which may be either highway vehicles, maneuvering vehicles or vehicles entering the site. In the technical personnel category, engineers, architects and technicians are included. This group of employees have a lower risk of being exposed to a traYc accident as indicated in Table 8. It is naturally observed that for drivers the percent of fatal injuries resulting from traYc incidents is high. The Wgures for drivers point out that 30.8% of fatal injuries result from traYc incidents. Only 7.1% of fatal traYc accidents cause the death of a driver (Only 2.2% of total 1774 cases are fatal injuries of drivers). In two cases, it is interesting to note that; motor vehicles hit drivers while they are getting oV their vehicles. In three cases drivers while walking were crashed into by a manoeuvring motor vehicle. Other cases are Wve vehicle rollovers and two cases of collision with another motor vehicle. These results point out the importance of a site traYc plan preparation. For the cases investigated it is obviously seen that, pedestrians, whatever their occupation is, are under the risk of a traYc accident on construction sites. After grouping the accidents by occupation, the distribution of the traYc accidents according to the diVerent types of the construction sites are presented. The distribution of fatal injuries resulting from motor vehicle incidents is shown in detail in Table 9. Additionally, in Table 10, the Wrst three leading causes of fatal injuries for each type of site and order of importance of the traYc accidents is illustrated. In a cross-tabulated form in Table 11, the way of occurrence versus type of the construction sites is presented. This table is functional to understand the diVerences and similarities between various types of construction work regarding site organisation, site traYc design and safety procedures. In the classiWcation of construction sites, the Table 9 Frequency and percent of fatal traYc accidents by diVerent types of sites Type of the construction site

Total fatalities Ni

Percent of all fatal cases Ni/
N (%)

TraYc accident caused fatalities (ni)

Percent of traYc accident caused fatalities by diVerent construction sites ni/
n (%)

For each type of site, the percent of traYc accident caused fatalities in total fatalities, ni/Ni (%)

Railways Highways Dam construction Channel and water supply works Ports Power-line Bridges Tunnels Demolition works Building Others

26 218 79 105

1.5 12.3 4.5 5.9

21 72 15 15

12.5 42.9 8.9 8.9

80.8 33.0 19.0 14.3

22 57 30 19 51 1036 131

1.2 3.2 1.7 1.1 2.9 58.4 7.4

3 5 2 1 1 20 13

1.8 3.0 1.2 0.6 0.6 11.9 7.7

13.6 8.8 6.7 5.3 2.0 1.9 9.9

Total

1774

168

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

311

Table 10 The Wrst three leading causes for fatal injuries by type of sites and order of importance of the traYc accidents Type of the construction site

On each site Wrst three important causes of fatal injuries and their percentages

Railways

TraYc accident on site (80.8) Highways Heavy equipment accidents (40.0) Channel and water Cave-ins (45.7) supply works Dam construction Injured by falling object (29.3) Ports Heavy equipment accidents (27.3) Tunnels Injured by falling object (70.6) Power-line Falls (30.9) Bridges

Falls (57.9)

Building

Falls (53.4)

Demolition works

Building/structure collapse (71.4)

Injured by falling object (13.4) TraYc accident on site (33.0) TraYc accident on site (14.3) Heavy equipment accidents (22.4) Contact with electricity (18.2) Fire or explosion (17.6) Injured by falling object (14.7) Injured by falling object (10.5) Contact with electricity (21.7) Falls (14.3)

Order of importance of the traYc accidents

Falls (3.8)

1

Fire or explosion (10.9) Heavy equipment accidents (13.0) TraYc accident on site (19.0) TraYc accident on site (13.6) TraYc accident on site (5.3) Contact with electricity (10.3) Heavy equipment accidents (10.5) Injured by falling object (7.8) Injured by falling object (4.1)

2 2 3 3 3 4 6 7 7

most common types of construction work in Turkey are taken into consideration. While, the “Other Group” included construction works such as masonry, tower works, wells, park and landscape facilities, etc. From the results depicted in the tables, certain points should be highlighted. By order of importance of the traYc accidents, it is noted that railway and highway works are the most hazardous sites for workers. For railway works it should be stated that, for many years, no new investment in railways has been made and the only work executed are maintenance or repair projects. The proportion of railway sites in total fatal injuries is only 1.8% while it is 13.9% in all fatal traYc accidents. Moreover, 80.8% of fatal injuries on these sites are resulting from crushes or run-overs by train. The State Railway Authority (General Directorate of Turkish State Railways) performs maintenance or repair projects and trains are also operated and owned by this Authority. For these incidents, it is noted that, the lack of proper communication between moving train operators (and oYcials responsible for trips) and project managers is the main cause of fatalities. The highest number of fatal motor vehicle incidents occur during highway construction; 42.9% of all traYc accidents occur in highway work zones. However, the proportion of these incidents in highway work zones is 33% (compared to what?) and comes after heavy construction equipment cases (40%). Due to the movement of various motor vehicles and other equipment that exist in highway projects, not only traYc accidents but also injuries resulting from heavy equipment incidents contribute

312

Type of the construction site

The ways of occurrence of traYc accidents on construction work zones Crushed/ Crushed/ Crushed/ run-over by run-over run-over highway by train by manoeuvehicle vring vehicle

Highways 30 Railways Building 2 Channel and 8 water supply works Dam construction Power-line 1 Ports Bridges 1 Demolition 1 works Tunnels Others 3 Total

46

Crushed/ Motor run-over vehicle by vehicles rollover entering the site

11

Fall from Fall from moving moving vehicle while vehicle getting on/oV

Motor vehicle Unknown Total accident involving collision with other vehicle

10

10

6

5

2

21

3 1 1

4 1

8 1

1 1

2 2

4

2

4 1

1

2 1

1

1 1

1 5 32

1 2

21

11

17

1

4

16

15

72 21 20 15

15 5 3 2 1 1 13

5

5

168

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

Table 11 For traYc accidents the way of occurrence versus the type of the construction site

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

313

to the high proportion of fatalities. As seen it in Table 10, heavy equipment cases are most important cause of fatalities. Another peculiarity of the highway projects is their work zone properties. Highway workers usually work in close proximity to construction equipment and moving traYc. Flaggers and other workers on foot are exposed to the risk of being struck by traYc vehicles or construction equipment if they are not visible to motorists or equipment operators. Workers who operate construction vehicles or equipment face the risk of being injured due to overturn, collision, or being caught in running equipment. Highway workers, regardless of their assigned task, work in low lighting, low visibility, and inclement weather, and may work in congested areas with exposure to high traYc volume and speeds. They are at risk of injury from passing traYc vehicles, injury from construction equipment operating inside the work zone and in ancillary areas that support the work zone (e.g., temporary batch plants construction vehicles operating inside work zones, as well as construction vehicles entering and leaving the work zone (NIOSH, 2001)). Frequently maintenance, repair or widening works take place on the crossroads of existing highways or to meet the new demands of traYc intensity new roads are constructed along with the existing roads. Therefore, the primary cause of fatalities is highway vehicle incidents, 30 of 72 casualties are crushes/ run-overs by highway vehicles. Maneuvering equipment, trucks or other motor vehicles operating in the work zone are a secondary risk for workers (11 cases). Other important incidents are vehicle rollovers (10 of 72) and the falling from moving vehicle while getting on/oV (10 cases). Moreover, it is seen that all cases of collisions with other motor vehicles occurred in highway work zones. As mentioned before, construction workers in Turkey have the lowest level of education in the labour force and their training before or during the construction projects is not satisfactory. The number of fatalities resulting from the incidents of falling from moving vehicle while getting on/oV indicates the before mentioned lack of training. Falls from moving vehicles is another point that underlines the lack of occupational safety and health culture in Turkish construction industry. Many times, construction workers travel in the work zone or longer distances on trucks carrying excavated soil or aggregate. When the truck suddenly stops or when moving through a rough terrain, workers are exposed to a risk of falling of the vehicle. IndiVerence of behalf of the site managers or other technical staV to this hazardous situation reXects the level of safety awareness in the construction industry. The percentage of total fatal injuries on building construction jobsites is very high (58.4%). On the other hand, 11.9% of all fatal traYc accident cases occurred in building construction zones. The percent of fatal traYc accidents in these sites is only 1.9% and its order of importance is not remarkable (Table 9). Eight of total 20 cases are collision of a motor vehicle entering or leaving the work zone with pedestrians and four cases are collisions of a maneuvering vehicle with pedestrians. Many of the building projects are of a small scale and vehicles are operating or maneuvering in conWned spaces. The main causes of fatalities in these work zones can be attributed to carelessness and to the absent-mindedness of the drivers or workers. 8.9% of the fatal traYc accidents have occurred in channel and water supply work zones. On the other hand 14.3% of the fatalities in these sites resulting from motor

314

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

vehicle incidents. In eight of 15 cases, workers are struck by passing highway vehicles. Due to the fact that workers working near the highways are exposed to the risk of being struck by highway vehicles, work zones should be separated properly from the traYc and traYc signs should be placed to warn drivers passing through. At dam construction sites 19% of the all fatalities are motor vehicle incidents while the proportion of dam construction sites in all fatal traYc accidents is 8.9%. Normally, at dam construction sites the risk of being exposed to highway vehicles does not exist. However, many times motor vehicles and equipment operate on rough ground and in conWned spaces. Four of 15 cases are crashes/run-overs by maneuvering trucks and the other four cases can be contributed to vehicle rollovers. It is not necessary to comment on the rest of construction sites (power-line, demolition works, ports, tunnels, bridges, etc.), because no signiWcant number of fatal traYc accidents, as seen in the Table 9 and 11, are detected.

4. Discussion Although in recent years good occupational safety practices in major companies were observed in Turkey, overall occupational safety and health practices still remain unsatisfactory. The Wgures presented in the Introduction part of this paper shows that construction sites in Turkey are still hazardous for all employees in the industry and in comparison to developed countries, level of success in occupational practices is very low. Of course, this negative nature of the industry is also depicted in the traYc accident causing fatalities. Additionally, due to the unsatisfactory statistical data available on motor vehicle incidents in construction industry from developing countries, it is not possible to make a comparison with this group of countries. The signiWcant results were derived from the total 1774 fatal injuries and 168 traYc related fatalities. The results are discussed and recommendations are made below. From the yearbook of the Social Insurance Institution General Directory, the oYcial authority to release statistical data on occupational injuries, it can be seen that between 1981 and 2001, an average of 417 fatal cases in construction industry have occurred annually. If it is assumed, as the examined Wles points out, that the proportion of fatal traYc accidents is 9.5%, it can be said that nearly 40 casualties can be contributed to fatal motor vehicle incidents on construction sites. TraYc accidents are the fourth most important reason for fatalities. These Wgures reveal the insuYcient traYc organisation level on sites as well as low level of training and awareness of the workers, drivers and other employers. Motor vehicle traYc accidents involving collisions with pedestrians (ICD-9 ECode is E 814) is the leading cause of fatalities, 65.55% of total casualties were killed by motor vehicles (Table 6). In addition, as seen in the same table, 46.5% of fatal cases result from the vehicles (highway vehicle or train) passing near or through the work zone. Vehicles passing near or through the work zone caused all of the fatalities in railway (maintenance and repair works) work zones, 30 of 72 (41.7%) fatalities in highway work zones, and 8 of 15 (53.3%) in channel and water supply work zones (Table 11). The routine traYc near the work zones has a negative eVects on occupa-

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

315

tional safety conditions and makes these construction sites more hazardous if proper safety management requirements are not complied to. It should be noted that, in the USA, nearly 80% of the fatalities among pedestrians in construction from 1982 through 1992 were coded as E 814. Previous studies indicate that the number of pedestrian deaths among construction workers resulting from being struck by passenger vehicles and tractor trailer trucks, and recent trends in the amount and type of road construction all point to the need for better traYc control management in construction work areas to reduce pedestrian fatalities. The type of traYc control used should be dictated by the nature, location and duration of work, type of roadway, traYc volume and speed, and potential hazards (Ore and Fosbroke, 1997). Another important point is, the incidents resulting from operating vehicles on site. In the Wles examined it is observed that, casualties that arise from being crashed into or run-over on site work in conWned spaces and in addition, operating and maneuvering equipment or trucks that struck them have limited space to move. These kinds of accidents and incidents resulting from vehicles entering the site have a proportion of 19.5% in all fatalities. Equipment and trucks should be operated by the aid of a Xagger, especially while manoeuvring. The adequate protection of Xaggers or surveyors is critical to construction zone safety planning. Moreover, construction site entrances should be located properly; for example; entrances for staV and vehicles should be separated. Another critical cause of fatalities is vehicle fall-overs that are included in the type of accidents stated as motor vehicle traYc accident due to loss of control, without collision (E 816). The number of motor vehicle fall-overs especially from slope of a hill is 17% and 10.12% of all fatal cases. For drivers, there is a potential hazard of losing of control near slopes, if vehicles are operating on rough terrain and their route is curved; on the sides of highways the risk is higher. It is also noted that, the same kind of hazard exist in dam construction zones; four of 17 cases have occurred in these sites. It is critical to locate warning signs properly and drivers should be cautious about speed limits especially if there slopes. As discussed before, falling from vehicle while getting on/oV or falling from moving vehicle, reXects the level of training among the construction workers. Mostly, unskilled labourers ride in dangerous positions on loaded trucks and travel from one workplace to another on larger construction sites. Moreover, getting on/oV from moving vehicles is sometimes regarded as a game among the construction workers! Of course, the training, warning and punishment of unskilled labourers is necessary, but on the other hand, it is observed in another study undertaken by the Construction Management Department with senior students, that the level of consciousness and training among the technical staV in construction Wrms is very low. Vehicles should be allocated separately to transport materials and workers, but unfortunately, the terms “negligence and indiVerence” characterises the view of civil engineers and other technical staV regarding occupational safety issues. Together with the level of training and awareness of the unskilled labourers, safety conditions in Turkish construction industry are alarming (Müngen, 1997). As the Health and Safety Executive of United Kingdom also suggests (Health and Safety Executive, 1996), safety managers must Wrstly ask the questions below, to decrease the risk of motor vehicle fatalities and to reach a proper traYc organisation.

316

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

(a) Have separate pedestrian, vehicle access points and routes around the site been provided? If not, are vehicles and pedestrians kept separate wherever possible? (b) Have one-way systems or turning points been provided to minimise the need for reversing? Where vehicles have to reverse, are they controlled by properly trained banksmen? (c) Are vehicles maintained; do the steering, handbrake and footbrake work properly? (d) Have drivers received proper training? (e) Are vehicles securely loaded? (f) Are passengers prevented from riding in dangerous positions? As mentioned before, the number of fatalities and the ways of occurrence diVer from one type of construction site to another. Therefore, before designing a proper safety management system, concerning traYc organisation on construction sites, characteristics of the construction work and work zone, volume of traYc volume (including equipment) on and near the site should be considered. On the other hand, the commitment of top and middle level managers upon safety management practices is hinge pointing order to decrease fatalities. To observe the most recent safety practices on construction sites, by twice visiting 12 construction Wrms a survey was undertaken by civil engineering students. This research was conducted not only to assess hazard of traYc accidents but also mainly to analyse all hazards and to assess safety performance on construction sites. Here, only relevant results from the research are given. It is observed that only Wve of 12 have good safety performances concerning traYc hazards. In order to perform hazard assessment on the construction sites, a checklist was prepared to assist those employers and employees who seek to comply mainly with the rules and regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (USA) (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1926). The standards referred to are Federal Occupational Safety and Health Standards for the construction industry, 29 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 1926 and other selected General Industry Safety and Health Standards, Part 1910 (20) having applicability to construction work. Using this checklist an expert can evaluate an item related to site safety, a scale between 1 and 10. On the other hand, in the checklist, the safety measures to be taken grouped according to the leading causes of accidents occurs in Turkish construction industry. Safety measures against falls, contact with electricity, heavy equipment accidents, traYc accidents on site and so on grouped separately. Here, it is only given the checklist for the traYc accidents (Table 12). By utilizing this checklist, it is observed that, only Wve construction Wrms took scores above 50. On other sites it is seen that separate pedestrian, vehicle access points and routes around the site have not been provided and vehicles and pedestrians are not kept separate; there is no one-way system or turning point to minimise the need for reversing; very few traYc or warning signs exist, and training of the workers is not provided. Even this small-scaled research depicts the poor safety performance of the Turkish construction industry. Nevertheless, to understand the occupational safety and health performance in the Turkish construction industry, some remarkable points concerning legislation, practices and culture should be pointed out.

Table 12 Checklist for the safety conditions to be satisWed for the traYc accidents on site Level of safety conditions for each particular case

To what extent the on-way system or turning points to minimise reversing provided?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

–

How is the wearing of the Xagmen? Are wearings proper (red or orange warning garments) or for working at night are reXectorized wearing garments satisfactory? 1926.201(a)(4) To what extent are all vehicles which are left unattended at night, adjacent to a highway in normal use or a construction site where work is in progress, equipped with lights, reXectors, or barricades to identify the location of the equipment? 1926.600(a)(1) Are parking brakes set on for all parked motor vehicle, and are necessary measures taken when vehicles parked on an incline? (for example, are wheels chocked for all equipments) 1926.600(a)(3)(ii) To what extent are motor vehicles which operate within an oV highway job site that is closed to public traYc being operated according to the requirements of this standard? 1926.601 Do all vehicles with an obstructed view to the rear have a back up alarm or are always used with a observer? 1926.601(b)(4) To what extent separate pedestrian, vehicle access point and routes around the site provided? To what extent are vehicles in use inspected at the beginning of each shift to assure that all parts, equipment, and accessories aVecting safety operation are free of defects? 1926.601(b)(14) How is the wearing of the employees exposed to vehicular traYc? Are there proper wearings for example warning vests made of reXectorized or high visibility material and to what extent are they being used? 1926.651(d) To what extent traYc or warning signs are satisfactory?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

–

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

–

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

–

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

–

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

–

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

– –

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

–

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

–

Total point

Relative point

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

Safety conditions to be satisWed to eliminate traYc accidents on site

–

317

318

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

A culture of safety and awareness among the workers, and engineers seems nonexistent. Adequate importance is not given to safety management and mostly, safety management practices are perceived as an extra cost for construction projects. On the other hand, employers generally perceive safety measures as extra work due to the of the lack of safety culture. Not only among unskilled workers but also among civil engineers, it is observed that training and knowledge on legislation of occupational safety and health is very unsatisfactory. As mentioned in previous research, more than half of those interviewed civil engineers are uninformed regarding the current legislation and their legal responsibilities (Müngen and Kuruoglu, 1997). Moreover, government inspections are insuYcient. The number of oYcials is very few; with the existing inspectors, only 10% of the companies can be controlled per year. According to the oYcial statistics, there are 777,177 registered job sites in Turkey and 90,130 of those are construction sites. (SII Statistical Yearbook, 2003) With the total number of 294 existing government inspectors for all industrial branches, approximately only 10% of the job sites can be controlled per year (SII Statistical Yearbook, 2003). Occupational safety and health legislation in Turkey is very comprehensive but on the other hand, it is not systematically arranged; there are many laws in existence, as well as regulations and by-laws in a disorganised manner. It is therefore necessary to gather all of them into one occupational health and safety law. Occupational Health and Safety Regulation in Construction Works arranges the code of practices in construction. However, there is only one article regulating traYc organisation on construction sites. Article 17 of the regulation states that “If trucks or similar motor vehicles operating in the construction work zones, for entrance and exit of the vehicles, places are arranged properly with the traYc signs, where vehicles have to reverse (manoeuvre) they must be controlled by properly trained banksmen. Vehicle access and parking points and routes around the site must be provided and unless the necessary safety measures satisWed, drivers must not leave their vehicles even momentarily.” In this article, the principal safety measures are stated but it is necessary to describe the traYc organisation and plan in detail. For example, in Germany there are many guidelines published by public agencies and occupational institutions that explain traYc organisation on construction sites in detail (Stolz and Strell, 1977; Suppelt and Tatomir, 1971). Additionally, to prevent worker injuries due to vehicles and equipment, the National Institute for occupational safety and health have published guidelines that includes research results, sample cases, statistics and instructions Pratt et al. (1998), (NIOSH, 1998). In ILO Code of Practice: Safety and Health in Construction, article 6 on Transport, earth-moving and materials-handling equipment and it items from 6.1.1 to 6.1.19 states the safety measures in detail (ILO, 1992). In practice, it is observed that only a few construction companies give importance to occupational safety issues. In these companies training programs and safety plans exist and trained personnel are employed to put safety measures into practice. Especially, in construction joint ventures with foreign partners, safety management practices are successfully carried out. However, the vast majority of the construction industry consists of small or middle scaled companies and in these companies, safety management principles are neglected. However, Turkey’s candidacy for European

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

319

Union membership also requires regulating the legislation and practice concerning occupational safety and health. In the future, only certiWcated companies will be in the market and those certiWcates such as OHSAS 18001 will be required to compete with other companies. In this case, hopefully, the poor safety performance of the Turkish construction industry will improve. Data from the case studies as presented in this paper, may a good source for modelling and may connect diVerent kinds of data and concepts in diVerent manners. Especially for traYc accidents some authors suggests methodologies to model the current data and current safety level. For example, Ying presents a recent study which applies Bayesian hierarchical methodology to model and analyse accident and injury surveillance data. A hierarchical Poisson random eVects spatio-temporal model is introduced and an analysis of inter-regional variations and regional trends in hospitalisations due to motor vehicle accident injuries to boys aged 0–24 in the province of British Columbia, Canada, is presented in this research. Ying illustrates how the modelling technique can be implemented as part of an accident and injury surveillance and prevention system where transportation and/or health authorities may routinely examine accidents, injuries, and hospitalisations to target high-risk regions for prevention programs, to evaluate prevention strategies, and to assist in health planning and resource allocation (Ying, 2003). On the other hand, the data collected from the archives may be used to build pedestrian data monitoring program for large-scaled construction zones. As Wayne and Dharminder points out that between 1992 and 1999, from 106 to 136 highway worker fatalities occurred each year in USA. About 23% of the fatalities were attributable to workers being struck by motor vehicles (some of which involved on-site, construction vehicles). A pedestrian data monitoring guide (PDMG) is proposed to provide information on pedestrian demand and behavioral characteristics, descriptions and suggested applications of data collection approaches, data gathering procedures, an explanation of the types of data needed, recommendations for data collection co-ordination and integrated databases, and data display instructions (Wayne and Dharminder, 2003). In developing countries, motor-vehicle-related mortalities frequently exceed those of the industrialized nations of North America and Europe. In Abdalla’s research (Abdalla, 2002) fatality and injury data used in the analysis mainly come from police reports and from other relevant international sources. In this study, groups of the population are identiWed according to associated risk and exposure factors. InXuence and strength of the most common risk factors are quantiWed using relative risk, the Lorenz curve, and the Gini index. Further analysis employed logit modeling, and possible predictors available in police reports, to estimate probability and odds ratios associated with drivers that are deemed responsible for causing traYc accidents. Cuny and Lejeune has been introduced The notion of “risk curve” and it is considered from the standpoint of how to develop its use in practice. They Wrst consider the conditions under which probability theory can be applied to a particular Weld of study, such as occupational risks, and then describe in detail the characteristics of a risk typology that would lend itself to statistical modelling. The typology is based on a group of general factors likely to lead to undesired events (UEs) in the workplace, which are themselves associated with the functioning of a

320

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

particular socio-technical system. This approach to constructing a risk curve for UEs within a speciWc system is illustrated by applying it to an accident database in the construction-public works sector (Cuny and Lejeune, 2003). Barling et al., has developed and tested a model of the attitudinal outcomes of the occurrence and severity of occupational injuries. Their model postulates that workplace accidents result in a perceived lack of inXuence and a distrust of management, with the former also aVecting the distrust of management. A sample of 9,908 employees was tested with the 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey database. Structural equation modeling provided strong support for the model with respect to accident occurrence, and the model was replicated across eight diVerent occupational groups in this study (Barling et al., 2003).

5. Conclusion In the cases observed, it is obvious that fatalities are resulting from the negligence of basic safety measures. Better surveillance and prevention will be required on site observation in case studies and linkage of all occupational fatality reports (death certiWcates) with all public data sources. In Turkey, relevant scientiWc research and statistical data on occupational injuries are insuYcient. Detailed accident analyses (type of injuries, the way of occurrence, etc.) cannot be provided by public agencies. In our department, research based on case studies related to occupational safety in construction depending has been ongoing. As the fourth leading cause of deaths in construction, motor vehicle occupational injury research and preventive safety eVorts should become a greater priority. Similar studies should be done in all civil engineering faculties in co-operation with the public institutions and autonomous agencies such as The Chamber of Civil Engineers. It should also be noted that, up to 60% of the accidents on Europe’s construction sites and over 25% of the fatalities could be avoided by more careful design, planning and procurement before construction starts, according to the report (Achieving Better Safety and Health in construction) published by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. That means, better planning could save 300 lives and avoid up to 500,000 accidents in Europe’s construction sector each year. European Council Directive 92/57/EEC highlights the co-ordination required by the various parties at the project preparation stage and during the construction phase. The minimum requirements set by directives have been implemented in national legislation that may include additional requirements. Consulting the workforce is a requirement. Using their knowledge helps to ensure hazards are correctly spotted and workable solutions implemented. Based on the result of this kind of research, more applicable and comprehensive training programs can easily be prepared and the certiWcation of employers in such programs should be obligatory before in the commencement of work on construction sites. It can be concluded that by these eVorts, engineers in practice, unskilled workers, drivers, equipment operators and all related occupations will be aware of their responsibilities and their roles to prevent loss of human life.

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

321

References Abdalla, I.M., 2002. Fatality risk assessment and modeling of drivers responsibility for causing traYc accidents in Dubai. J. Safety Res. 33 (4), 483–496. Bailer, A.J., Bena, J.F., Stayner, L.T., Halperin, W.E., Park, R.M., 2003. External cause-speciWc summaries of occupational fatal injuries. Part I: An analysis of rates. Am. J. Ind. Med. 43, 237–250. Bailer, A.J., Stayner, L.T., Stout, N.A., Reed, L.D., Gilbert, S.J., 1998. Trends in occupational fatal injury rates in the US (1983–1992). Occup. Environ. Med. 55, 485–498. Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K., Iverson, R.D., 2003. Accidental outcomes: attitudinal consequences of workplace injuries. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 8 (1), 74–85. Burkhart, G., Schulte, P.A., Robinson, C., Sieber, W.K., Vossenas, P., Ringen, K., 1993. Job tasks, potential exposures, and health risks of labourers employed in the construction industry. Am. J. Ind. Med. 24, 413–425. Buskin, S.E., Paulozzi, L., 1987. Fatal injuries in the construction industry in Washington State. Am. J. Ind. Med. 11, 453–460. Cattledge, G., Hendricks, S., Stanevich, R., 1996. Fatal occupational falls in the United States construction industry 1980–1989. Accident Anal. Prevent. 28, 647–654. Cuny, X., Lejeune, M., 2003. Statistical modelling and risk assessment. Safety Sci. 41 (1), 29–51. Dalton, M., 2002. Fatal accidents in the Irish construction industry 1991–2001: a survey of contributory factors, The Irish Health and Safety Authority Report. Available from: . Health and Safety Executive (UK), 1996. Health and safety site checklist. Available from: . Hinze, J., Pedersen, C., Fredley, J., 1998. Identifying root causes of construction injuries. J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 124 (1), 67–71. International Labour OYce, 1992. Safety and Health in Construction: an ILO Code of Practice. Geneva, Switzerland. Janicak, C.A., 2001. Pedestrian fatalities in the construction industry. ASSE Prof. Safety J. 46 (7), 16–19. Johnson, H.M., Singh, A., Young, R.H.F., 1998. Fall protection analysis for workers on residential roofs. J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 124 (5), 418–426. Kisner, S.M., Fosbroke, D.E., 1994. Injury hazards in the construction industry. J. Occup. Med. 36, 137–143. Leigh, J.P., 1995. Causes of Death in the Workplace. Quorum Books, Westport, Connecticut. Marsh, S.M., Layne L.A., 2001. Fatal injuries to civilian workers in the United States, 1980–1995. DHHS (NIOSH) Number 2001–129S, Cincinnati. McCann, M., Hunting, K.L., Murawski, J., Chowdhury, R., Welch, L., 2003. Causes of electrical deaths and injuries among construction workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 43, 151–156. Müngen, U., 1993. Türkiye’de Inoaat Io Kazalarínín Analizi ve Io Güvenligi Sorunu, Yayínlanmamío Doktora Tezi, Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi. Müngen, U., 1997, Employment related accidents in the Turkish construction sector and applications of occupational safety. In: Proceedings of the 1st South African Construction Health and Safety Conference, Johannesburg, pp. 231–241. Müngen, U., Kuruoglu, M., 1997. Importance of construction safety in civil engineering education and a case study. Health and safety in construction-current and future challenges. In: Proceedings of the 1st South African Construction Health and Safety Conference, Johannesburg, pp. 129–137. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1998. Preventing worker injuries and deaths from traYc-related motor vehicle crashes. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 98-142, Cincinnati. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR Part 1926), Construction Standards. Ore, T., Casini, V., 1996. Electrical fatalities among United States construction workers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 38, 587–592. Ore, T., Fosbroke, D.E., 1997. Motor vehicle fatalities in the United States construction industry. Accident Anal. Prevent. 29 (5), 613–626. Ore, T., Stout, N.A., 1996. Traumatic occupational fatalities in the US and Australian construction industries. Am. J. Ind. Med. 30, 202–206.

322

U. Müngen, G.E. Gürcanli / Safety Science 43 (2005) 299–322

Pollack, E.S, GriYn, M., Ringen, K., Weeks, L., 1996. Fatalities in the construction industry in the United States, 1992 and 1993. Am. J. Ind. Med. 30, 325–330. Pratt, S.G., Kisner, S.M, Helmkamp, J.L., 1996. Machinery-related occupational fatalities in the United States, 1980–1989. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 36, 70–76. Pratt, S.G., Fosbroke, D.F., Marsh, S.M., 1998. Building safer highway work zones: measures to prevent worker injuries from vehicles and equipment. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS/NIOSH Pub. No. 2001-128, Cincinnati. Robinson, C., Stern, S.F., Halperin, W., Venable, H., Petersen, M., Frazier, T., Brunett, C., Lalich, N., Salg, J., Stito, J., Fingerhurt, M., 1995. Assessment of mortality in the construction industry in the United States, 1984–1986. Am. J. Ind. Med. 28, 49–70. Ruser, J.W., 1998. Denominator choice in the calculation of workplace fatality rates. Am. J. Ind. Med 33, 151–156. Social Insurance Institution of Turkey Statistical Yearbook 2003. Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Labor and Social Insurance, SII Directorate Publication No: 670. Sorock, G.S., Smith, E.O., Goldoft, M., 1993. Fatal occupational injuries in the New Jersey construction industry, 1983–1989. J. Occup. Med. 35, 916–921. Sorock, G.S., Ranney, T.A., Lehto, M.R., 1996. Motor vehicle crashes in roadway construction work zones: an analysis using narrative text from insurance claims. Accident Anal. Prevent. 28, 131–138. Stern, F.S., Shulte, P., Sweeney, M.H., Fingerhurt, M., Vossenas, P., Burkhardt, G., Kornak, M., 1995. Proportionate mortality among construction labourers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 27, 485–509. Stolz, R., Strell, H., 1977. Verkehrssicherung an Baustellen, Heraus von der Deutschen Verkehrswacht unter Mitwirkung der Bauberufsgenossenschaften und der Tiefbau-Berufsgenossenschaft, 5. AuXage, Bonn. Suppelt, H.J., Tatomir, E., 1971. Sicherung von Baustellen gegen Verkehrsgefahren, Sonderdruck aus die Tiefbau-Berufsgenossenschaft, Amtliche Mitteilungsblaetter, Heft 5/71 und Heft 10/71, München. Suruda, A.J, 1992. Work-related deaths in construction painting. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 18, 30–33. Suruda, A.J, Smith, G., Baker, S.P., 1988. Deaths from trench cave-in in the construction industry. J. Occup. Med. 30, 553–555. Suruda, A.J, Fosbroke, D.E, Braddee, R., 1995. Fatal work-related falls from roofs. J. Safety Res. 26, 1–8. Trent, R.B., Wyant, W.D., 1990. Fatal hand tool injuries in the construction. J. Occup. Med. 32, 711–714. Toscano, G., Windau, W.D., 1993. Fatal work injuries: results from the 1992 national census. Monthly Labour Rev. 116 (10), 39–48. Toscano, G., 1997. Dangerous jobs. Comp. Work Cond. 2 (2), 57–60. Trawén, A., Maraste, P., Persson, U., 2002. International comparison of costs of a fatal casualty of road accidents in 1990 and 1999. Accident Anal. Prevent. 34, 323–332. Ying, C.M, 2003. A Bayesian hierarchical model for accident and injury surveillance. Accident Anal. Prevent. 35 (1), 91–102. Wayne, D.C., Dharminder, P., 2003. Evaluation of pedestrian data needs and collection eVorts. In: Proceedings, 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC, January 12–16. Wegman, F., Lynam, D., Nilsson, G., 2002. SUNXower: A comparative study of the development of road safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. SWOV, Leidschendam pp. 1–147.