Towards making informed decisions on selecting promising work zone safety treatments

Lack of detailed and accurate safety records on incidents in Australian work zones prevents a thorough understanding of the relevant risks and hazards. Consequently it is difficult to select appropriate treatments for improving the safety of roadworkers and motorists alike. This paper outlines development of a conceptual framework for making informed decisions about safety treatments by: 1) identifying safety issues and hazards in work zones; 2) understanding the attitudes and perceptions of both roadworkers and motorists; 3) reviewing the effectiveness of work zone safety treatments according to existing research, and; 4) incorporating local expert opinion on the feasibility and usefulness of the safety treatments. Using data collected through semi-structured interviews with roadwork personnel and online surveys of Queensland drivers, critical safety issues were identified. The effectiveness of treatments for addressing the issues was understood through rigorous literature review and consultations with local road authorities. Promising work zone safety treatments include enforcement, portable rumble strips, perceptual measures to imply reduced lane width, automated or remotely-operated traffic lights, end of queue measures, and more visible and meaningful signage.

To ask or not to ask? Investigating workers' flexibility requests and the phenomenon of discontented non-requesters

Flexible working arrangements have attracted growing attention in workplaces across Australia and in many other countries in recent years. This contribution utilises the results of two large Australian employee surveys to analyse who asks for flexibility, why, and with what effects on work-life interference. This analysis is set in the context of Australia’s ‘Right to Request’ (RTR) provisions which, at the time of the study, gave parents of preschool children and those with a disabled child aged up to 18 the RTR flexibility. The analysis also draws on a set of qualitative interviews of those we term ‘discontented non-requesters’ (that is, those who are not content with current arrangements but who do not ask for flexibility) to probe beneath the survey results to consider explanations about why some people do not ask for flexibility despite desiring different working arrangements. We conclude with the implications for policy and regulation.