Abstract

The goal of the study was to investigate if the drivers behave in the same way when they are driving a motorcycle or a car. For this purpose, the Motorcycle Rider Behaviour Questionnaire and Driver Behaviour Questionnaire were conducted among the same drivers population. Items of questionnaires were used to develop a structural equation model with two factors, one for the motorcyclist's behaviour, and the other for the car driver's behaviour. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were also applied in this study. Results revealed a certain difference in driving behaviour. The principal reason lies probably in mental consciousness that the risk-taking driving of a motorbike can result in much more catastrophic consequences than when driving a car. The drivers also pointed out this kind of thinking and the developed model has statistically confirmed the behavioural differences. The implications of these findings are also argued in relation to the validation of the appropriateness of the existing traffic regulations. Glavni namen raziskave je preučevanje morebitnih vedenjskih razlik motoristov pri vožnji z motornim kolesom ali avtomobilom. V ta namen je izvedena anketa v obliki dveh vprašalnikov med isto populacijo motoristov. Prvi vprašalnik zrcali motoristične vedenjske, drugi pa avtomobilistične vedenjske vzorce. Na osnovi zbranih podatkov ankete je razvit model strukturnih enačb z dvema faktorjema, eden se nanaša na vedenjske lastnosti vožnje z motorjem, drugi pa na vedenjske lastnosti vožnje z avtom. V procesu razvoja modela sta uporabljeni tudi eksploratorna in potrditvena faktorska analiza. Rezultati kažejo, da dejansko obstajajo določene razlike v voznem obnašanju. Glavni razlog za to je verjetno v mentalnem zavedanju motoristov, da rizična vožnja z motorjem lahko vodi do mnogo hujših posledic v primerjavi z vožnjo z avtom. Motoristi namreč posebej izpostavijo tovrstno dojemanje razlik pri vožnji z motorjem ali avtom, kar naš model tudi statistično potrdi. Implikacije teh ugotovitev so soočene z morebitno neustreznostjo obstoječe prometne zakonodaje.

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to study the main communication policies carried out by various public institutions, in accordance with national and European food safety control systems, in order to manage the growing number and severity of food crises. To this end, the outbreak of listeriosis in La Mechá tufted meat company registered in the summer of 2019 in Spain has been selected as one of the cases, together with the crisis caused by the bacteria E. coli in 2011, in which the communication policy of institutions has caused more controversy. Given the commitment of national and European authorities to strengthen the systems of alerts and health and food control, the study of this case aims to put on the table the suitability of the crisis communication management and to underline its importance as the main tool for managing food crises, so that conflicts can be controlled and alarmism caused by certain information can be reduced. In the face of a food crisis, the only instrument available to the final consumer to protect his health is information. If the competent authorities issue discrepant, ambiguous, speculative or contradictory messages, the feeling of lack of control and misinformation will increase. On the other hand, the complexity of the area in which these crises develop, food safety, requires that public authorities and those responsible for developing these communication policies know how national and European safety controls work, including the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), which allows the responsible national and European bodies to exchange information quickly and efficiently, and the relevant legislation.