過去自1980年代以後，臺灣政府為有效控管機車流動風險，逐漸確立「分流模式」的意識形態及實務做法，並在2000年以後持續於全國擴大部署，其主要以實體工程的方式來分隔汽機車行駛的道路空間，來降低臺灣都市內汽機車混合共用車道而造成的風險問題。然而，大約在2011年以後，臺灣公民社會開始組織機車社會運動，這些運動組織對於現有道路規劃中的汽機車分流模式提出質疑，在運動者的觀點中，他們認為分流模式並無辦法帶給機車族交通安全，反而還會讓臺灣機車族面臨更多交通危險。

當今臺灣機車風險治理正在跨入一個嶄新的時期：在臺灣公民社會與技術官僚體系之間，兩方對於機車安全治理存有截然不同的風險論述，近年來還因此形成以「機車道路安全」作為抗議主軸的社會運動。面對上述衝突，本文將主要以風險社會學的理論作為基礎，並藉由二手文獻回顧及半結構式訪談兩種研究方法，來進一步了解臺灣官方與機車常民專家之間對於機車風險治理的意見差異，以及我國交通風險治理背後潛藏的結構性問題。而本文發現，在早期過度由專家壟斷的交通風險治理過程中，機車常民的使用經驗與不同意見並未能有效進入到體制內反饋，導致臺灣機車風險治理形塑出過度單一的風險知識，同時也讓官方機車風險治理策略至今仍充斥問題。

論文外文摘要：

Since 1980s to 2000s, Taiwan Government gradually has established the ideology of "Separated-flow Model", which is a traffic engineering theory that leads to the road space for the car and the motorcycle to be divided. Nevertheless, Taiwan's civil society had begun to organize a social movement to challenge government's this very risk governance policy after 2011. In the activists’ perspective, they criticized the Separated-flow Model and suggested that it can’t promote safety for Taiwan motorcyclists; conversely, it would only result in motorcyclists to confront even more risk than before.

Several research findings are pointed out: in the early stage, the motorcycle risk governance in Taiwan was heavily relied on the risk assessment and knowledge of the expert system. Meanwhile, the lay people’s risk perception was excluded from the decision-making process of risk governance. Therefore, it caused the motorcycle risk assessment in Taiwan to be shaped by a oversimplified risk knowledge. Different from Separated-flow Model which was exclusively shaped by the expert system, the activists have mainly used two values (namely, 'formal-equality' and ‘road-shared') to facilitate road safety. This research conceptualizes the values of activists with a new model: “Inclusive-flow Model”.