臺灣自2004年至2018年間整體交通事故件數不斷攀升，且邇來因違規超速導致發生多起重大交通事故，除造成第一線執法人員嚴重傷亡外，亦導致無數家庭的支離破碎，引發社會大眾關注，因此，政府機關提出以科技執法為導向之新思維，並選定萬里隧道作為「區間平均速率科技執法政策(簡稱區間測速)」試辦地點，然而政策是否具有實質效益？唯有透過客觀的實證數據分析，才能真正獲得解答。
本研究依據萬里隧道實施上揭政策前後之交通數據資料，以政策正式實施日作為政策效益評估的時間點，估計政策實施的效果。並採用差異中之差異法(Differences in Differences，DiD)的研究方法分析「是否屬於實驗組」與「政策實施前/後」車輛行車平均速率的變化情形，藉以捕捉實質的政策效益，並以成本/效益分析檢視政策之良窳。
從實證分析結果顯示，在政策實施之前後一週內，駕駛人之平均行駛速率降低6.5(公里/小時)。另外，無論係從每日車輛行駛平均速率或是尖峰小時速率迴歸分析結果，政策實施使平均行駛速率降低6.45-6.48(公里/小時)。從上揭三方面印證，該政策效果係在實施政策時間點的前後產生，此政策效果使得平均行駛速率降低幅度為6.45-6.5(公里/小時)。即使本研究考量政策實施的內生性問題，以兩階段最小平方法並修正政策可能存在之內生性問題，得出平均行駛速率仍至少顯著降低5.94(公里/小時)。
本研究發現該政策產生效益至少價值新臺幣603萬元，推估減少交通事故件數達50.76%，成本效益評估優於原先執法設備。故本文結論建議若固定式測速設備已逾年限，汰換時應全數更換區間測速系統及未達使用年限或未建置區間測速隧道應視事故件數、違規情形、地理環境及道路狀況等因素審慎評估後方可實施。

From 2004 to 2018, the number of overall traffic accidents in Taiwan has been rising continually, and many serious traffic accidents have occurred due to violations of speeding. In addition to causing serious casualties among first-line law enforcement officers, it has also led to the fragmentation of countless families and caused public concern. Therefore, the government has proposed a new thinking based on technological law enforcement, and selected the Wanli Tunnel as the pilot site for the "Policy of Technological Law Enforcement with Interval Average Speed (referred to as Interval Speed Measurement)". However, will the policy generate substantial benefits? The only to reveal the answer may be objective analysis of empirical data.
The study is based on the traffic data of the Wan-li Tunnel before and after the implementation of the policy, taking the official implementation date of the policy as the time point of policy evaluation, in order to estimate the effect of the implementation of the policy. Also, by using the research method of Differences in Differences (DiD), the study analyzed the changes in the average speed of vehicle driving “before/after the implementation of the policy” and “implementing the policy or not”, in order to capture the actual policy benefits, and examine the policy through cost-benefit analysis.
From the analysis of empirical data, the average speed decreased by 6.5 (km/h) within one week before/after the implementation of the policy. Furthermore, the implementation of the policy reduced the average speed by 6.45-6.48 (km/h), no matter considering the regression analysis of the daily average speed of vehicles or the average speed in the high peak hour. Confirmed with the three aspects above, the effect of this policy is generated within the time point before and after the implementation of the policy, which is to reduce the average driving speed by 6.45-6.5 (km/h). Even if considering the endogenous problems of the implementation of the policy, after amending the possible endogenous problems of the policy with the two-stage least squares method, the average driving speed still significantly reduced by at least 5.94 (km/h).
The study found that the policy would generate a value of at least NT$ 6.03 million, estimated to reduce the number of traffic accidents by 50.76%, and was superior to the original law enforcement equipment according to cost-benefit assessment. Therefore, the conclusion of this research suggests that, if the fixed speed measuring equipment has exceeded its age limit, it should be replaced by the interval speed measuring system; As for the ones that has not reach its age limit of usage or tunnels that have not establish the interval speed measuring system, factors including the number of accidents, the situation of violations, the geographical environment and the situation of the road, should all be evaluated cautiously before implementing.

摘要---------------------------------------I
誌謝---------------------------------------IV
目錄---------------------------------------VI
圖目錄-------------------------------------VII
表目錄-------------------------------------VIII
第一章 緒論-----------------------------------1
1.1研究動機-----------------------------------1
1.2研究背景與目的-----------------------------3
1.3.1研究範圍---------------------------------7
1.3.2研究限制---------------------------------9
第二章 文獻回顧------------------------------10
2.1名詞解釋----------------------------------10
2.2區間平均速率科技執法的法源依據------------11
2.3行車速率對交通事故關聯性------------------11
2.4各國發展區間平均速率科技執法政策之現況----15
第三章 研究設計與資料說明--------------------18
3.1執法程度與行車速率之理論模型--------------18
3.2資料內容概述------------------------------21
3.3敘述統計----------------------------------21
3.4迴歸方法的選定----------------------------27
3.5如何選取適當的控制組----------------------29
3.6 DID多變數迴歸的結果與解釋----------------32
3.7修正政策實施的內生性問題------------------37
第四章 成本效益分析--------------------------41
4.1成本估算----------------------------------41
4.2政策效益----------------------------------43
第五章 結論與建議----------------------------48
5.1結論--------------------------------------48
5.2未來研究方向與建議------------------------49
參考文獻-------------------------------------51

〔1〕交通部統計查詢網(2019)，擷取日期：2019年6月28日，網站：http://stat.motc.gov.tw/mocdb/stmain.jsp?sys=100。
〔2〕交通部運輸研究所，汽車學習讀本，101 年12 月。
〔3〕吳坤霖(2016)，平均速率執法可行性之研究，中央警察大學交通管理研究所碩士論文。
〔4〕周文生、陳蔚文(1999)，道路交通事故肇事原因分析程序之研究，88年道路交通安全與執法研討會。
〔5〕陳建立、洪純隆(1995)，1991-1992年高雄市頭部外傷之發生率與死亡率研究，第11卷，第9期，頁537-545。
〔6〕陳高村、許志誠 (2000)，「道路交通事故賠償金額推估之研究」，89年道路交通安全與執法研討會，頁209-224。
〔7〕陳高村、許志誠(2003)，道路交通事故損害賠償成本推估之研究。運輸計劃季刊，第32卷，第2期，頁365-390。
〔8〕曹灝(2018)，高速公路科技執法之研究，中央警察大學交通管理研究所碩士論文
〔9〕楊漢鵬(2018)，科技執法之現況與展望，107年道路交通安全與執法研討會。
〔10〕廖雅婷、朱興中(2014)，道路速度限制與行車速度差異之研究 -以嘉義市為例，103年道路交通安全與執法研討會。
〔11〕臺灣經濟研究院(2010)，行車成本調查分析與交通建設計畫經濟效益評估之推廣應用(1/2)，交通部運研所委託研究計畫。
〔12〕蔡易錚(2013)，多事故地點肇因分析與改善之研究－以台中市北屯區為例，逢甲大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士論文。
〔13〕劉正揚、曾平毅、汪進財(1999)，易肇事路口改善措施之研究與成效之研究，88年道路交通安全與執法研討會。
〔14〕劉彩卿 陳欽賢 合著(2012)，「STATA基礎操作與統計模型應用」，雙葉書廊。
二、英文文獻
〔1〕Alfonso Montella, Lella Liana Imbriani, Vittorio Marzano, & Filomena Mauriello.(2015).“Effects on speed and safety of point-to-point speed enforcement systems: Evaluation on the urban motorway A56 Tangenziale di Napoli.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 75, pp. 164-178.
〔2〕David W. Soole, Barry C. Watson, & Judy J.Fleiter. (2013).“Effects of average speed enforcement on speed compliance and crashes：A review of the literature.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 54, pp. 46-56.
〔3〕Letty Aarts, & Ingrid van Schagen . (2006). “Driving speed and the risk of road crashes: A review.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, pp. 215-224.
〔4〕OECD/ITF (International Transport Forum),”Towards Zero, Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach”, 2008.
〔5〕OECD/ECMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport),“Speed Management”, 2006.