Illegal pedestrian crossing at signalised intersections : Incidence and relative risk

Illegal pedestrian behaviour is common and is reported as a factor in many pedestrian crashes. Since walking is being promoted for its health and environmental benefits, minimisation of its associated risks is of interest. The risk associated with illegal road crossing is unclear, and better information would assist in setting a rationale for enforcement and priorities for public education. An observation survey of pedestrian behaviour was conducted at signalised intersections in the Brisbane CBD (Queensland, Australia) on typical workdays, using behavioural categories that were identifiable in police crash reports. The survey confirmed high levels of crossing against the lights, or close enough to the lights that they should legally have been used. Measures of exposure for crossing legally, against the lights, and close to the lights were generated by weighting the observation data. Relative risk ratios were calculated for these categories using crash data from the observation sites and adjacent midblocks. Crossing against the lights and crossing close to the lights both exhibited a crash risk per crossing event approximately eight times that of legal crossing at signalised intersections. The implications of these results for enforcement and education are discussed, along with the limitations of the study.

Managing illegal street racing and associated risky driving behaviour : An Australian perspective

Illegal street racing has received increased attention in recent years from the media, governments and road safety professionals. At the same time, there has been a shift from treating illegal street racing as a public nuisance issue to a road safety problem in Australia, as this behaviour now attracts a penalty of increased periods of vehicle impoundment leading to permanent vehicle forfeiture for repeat offences. This severe vehicle sanction is typically applied to repeat drink driving offenders and drivers who breach suspensions and disqualifications in North American jurisdictions, but was first introduced in Australia to deal with illegal street racing and associated risky driving behaviours, grouped together under the label of ‘hooning’ in Australian jurisdictions. This paper describes how Australian jurisdictions are dealing with this issue. The research described in this paper drew on multiple data sources to explore illegal street racing and the management of this issue in Australia. First, the paper reviews the relevant legislation in each Australian state to describe the cross-jurisdictional similarities and differences in approaches. It also describes some results from focus group discussions and a quantitative online survey with drivers who self-report engaging in illegal street racing and associated behaviours in Queensland, Australia. It was found that approaches to dealing with illegal street racing and associated risky driving behaviours in each Australian state are similar, with increasing periods of vehicle impoundment (leading to vehicle forfeiture) applied to repeat hooning offences within prescribed periods. Participants in the focus groups and respondents to the questionnaire generally felt these penalty periods were severe, with perceptions of severity increasing with the length of the penalty period. It was concluded that there is a need for each jurisdiction to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of their vehicle impoundment and forfeiture programs for hooning. These evaluations should compare the relative costs of these programs (e.g., enforcement, unrecovered towing and storage fees, and court costs) to the observed benefits (e.g., reduction in target behaviours, reduction in community complaints, and reduction in the number and severity of associated crashes).

Risky driving or risky drivers? Exploring driving and crash histories of illegal street racing offenders

Illegal street racing has received increased attention in recent years from road safety professionals and the media as jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, and the United States have implemented laws to address the problem, which primarily involves young male drivers. Although some evidence suggests that the prevalence of illegal street racing is increasing, obtaining accurate estimates of the crash risk of this behavior is difficult because of limitations in official data sources. Although crash risk can be explored by examining the proportion of incidents of street racing that result in crashes, or the proportion of all crashes that involve street racing, this paper reports on the findings of a study that explored the riskiness of involved drivers. The driving histories of 183 male drivers with an illegal street racing conviction in Queensland, Australia, were compared with a random sample of 183 male Queensland drivers with the same age distribution. The offender group was found to have significantly more traffic infringements, license sanctions, and crashes than the comparison group. Drivers in the offender group were more likely than the comparison group to have committed infringements related to street racing, such as speeding, "hooning," and offenses related to vehicle defects or illegal modifications. Insufficient statistical capacity prevented full exploration of group differences in the type and nature of earlier crashes. It was concluded, however, that street racing offenders generally can be considered risky drivers who warrant attention and whose risky behavior cannot be explained by their youth alone.

The road safety implications of illegal street racing and associated risky driving behaviours : an analysis of offences and offenders

The purpose of this study was to explore the road safety implications of illegal street racing and associated risky driving behaviours. This issue was considered in two ways: Phase 1 examined the descriptions of 848 illegal street racing and associated risky driving offences that occurred in Queensland, Australia, in order to estimate the risk associated with these behaviours; and Phase 2 examined the traffic and crash histories of the 802 male offenders involved in these offences, and compared them to those of an age-matched comparison group, in order to examine the risk associated with the driver. It was found in Phase 1 that only 3.7% of these offences resulted in a crash (none of which were fatal), and that these crashes tended to be single-vehicle crashes where the driver lost control of the vehicle and collided with a fixed object. Phase 2 found that the offender sample had significantly more traffic infringements, licence sanctions and crashes in the previous three years than the comparison group. It was concluded that while only a small proportion of racing and associated offences result in a crash, these offenders appear to be generally risky drivers that warrant special attention.

Illegal street racing and associated (hooning) behaviours

In an Australian context, the term hooning refers to risky driving behaviours such as illegal street racing and speed trials, as well as behaviours that involve unnecessary noise and smoke, which include burn outs, donuts, fish tails, drifting and other skids. Hooning receives considerable negative media attention in Australia, and since the 1990s all Australian jurisdictions have implemented vehicle impoundment programs to deal with the problem. However, there is limited objective evidence of the road safety risk associated with hooning behaviours. Attempts to estimate the risk associated with hooning are limited by official data collection and storage practices, and the willingness of drivers to admit to their illegal behaviour in the event of a crash. International evidence suggests that illegal street racing is associated with only a small proportion of fatal crashes; however, hooning in an Australian context encompasses a broader group of driving behaviours than illegal street racing alone, and it is possible that the road safety risks will differ with these behaviours. There is evidence from North American jurisdictions that vehicle impoundment programs are effective for managing drink driving offenders, and drivers who continue to drive while disqualified or suspended both during and post-impoundment. However, these programs used impoundment periods of 30 – 180 days (depending on the number of previous offences). In Queensland the penalty for a first hooning offence is 48 hours, while the vehicle can be impounded for up to 3 months for a second offence, or permanently for a third or subsequent offence within three years. Thus, it remains unclear whether similar effects will be seen for hooning offenders in Australia, as no evaluations of vehicle impoundment programs for hooning have been published. To address these research needs, this program of research consisted of three complementary studies designed to: (1) investigate the road safety implications of hooning behaviours in terms of the risks associated with the specific behaviours, and the drivers who engage in these behaviours; and (2) assess the effectiveness of current approaches to dealing with the problem; in order to (3) inform policy and practice in the area of hooning behaviour. Study 1 involved qualitative (N = 22) and quantitative (N = 290) research with drivers who admitted engaging in hooning behaviours on Queensland roads. Study 2 involved a systematic profile of a large sample of drivers (N = 834) detected and punished for a hooning offence in Queensland, and a comparison of their driving and crash histories with a randomly sampled group of Queensland drivers with the same gender and age distribution. Study 3 examined the post-impoundment driving behaviour of hooning offenders (N = 610) to examine the effects of vehicle impoundment on driving behaviour. The theoretical framework used to guide the research incorporated expanded deterrence theory, social learning theory, and driver thrill-seeking perspectives. This framework was used to explore factors contributing to hooning behaviours, and interpret the results of the aspects of the research designed to explore the effectiveness of vehicle impoundment as a countermeasure for hooning. Variables from each of the perspectives were related to hooning measures, highlighting the complexity of the behaviour. This research found that the road safety risk of hooning behaviours appears low, as only a small proportion of the hooning offences in Study 2 resulted in a crash. However, Study 1 found that hooning-related crashes are less likely to be reported than general crashes, particularly when they do not involve an injury, and that higher frequencies of hooning behaviours are associated with hooning-related crash involvement. Further, approximately one fifth of drivers in Study 1 reported being involved in a hooning-related crash in the previous three years, which is comparable to general crash involvement among the general population of drivers in Queensland. Given that hooning-related crashes represented only a sub-set of crash involvement for this sample, this suggests that there are risks associated with hooning behaviour that are not apparent in official data sources. Further, the main evidence of risk associated with the behaviour appears to relate to the hooning driver, as Study 2 found that these drivers are likely to engage in other risky driving behaviours (particularly speeding and driving vehicles with defects or illegal modifications), and have significantly more traffic infringements, licence sanctions and crashes than drivers of a similar (i.e., young) age. Self-report data from the Study 1 samples indicated that Queensland’s vehicle impoundment and forfeiture laws are perceived as severe, and that many drivers have reduced their hooning behaviour to avoid detection. However, it appears that it is more common for drivers to have simply changed the location of their hooning behaviour to avoid detection. When the post-impoundment driving behaviour of the sample of hooning offenders was compared to their pre-impoundment behaviour to examine the effectiveness of vehicle impoundment in Study 3, it was found that there was a small but significant reduction in hooning offences, and also for other traffic infringements generally. As Study 3 was observational, it was not possible to control for extraneous variables, and is, therefore, possible that some of this reduction was due to other factors, such as a reduction in driving exposure, the effects of changes to Queensland’s Graduated Driver Licensing scheme that were implemented during the study period and affected many drivers in the offender sample due to their age, or the extension of vehicle impoundment to other types of offences in Queensland during the post-impoundment period. However, there was a protective effect observed, in that hooning offenders did not show the increase in traffic infringements in the post period that occurred within the comparison sample. This suggests that there may be some effect of vehicle impoundment on the driving behaviour of hooning offenders, and that this effect is not limited to their hooning driving behaviour. To be more confident in these results, it is necessary to measure driving exposure during the post periods to control for issues such as offenders being denied access to vehicles. While it was not the primary aim of this program of research to compare the utility of different theoretical perspectives, the findings of the research have a number of theoretical implications. For example, it was found that only some of the deterrence variables were related to hooning behaviours, and sometimes in the opposite direction to predictions. Further, social learning theory variables had stronger associations with hooning. These results suggest that a purely legal approach to understanding hooning behaviours, and designing and implementing countermeasures designed to reduce these behaviours, are unlikely to be successful. This research also had implications for policy and practice, and a number of recommendations were made throughout the thesis to improve the quality of relevant data collection practices. Some of these changes have already occurred since the expansion of the application of vehicle impoundment programs to other offences in Queensland. It was also recommended that the operational and resource costs of these laws should be compared to the road safety benefits in ongoing evaluations of effectiveness to ensure that finite traffic policing resources are allocated in a way that produces maximum road safety benefits. However, as the evidence of risk associated with the hooning driver is more compelling than that associated with hooning behaviour, it was argued that the hooning driver may represent the better target for intervention. Suggestions for future research include ongoing evaluations of the effectiveness of vehicle impoundment programs for hooning and other high-risk driving behaviours, and the exploration of additional potential targets for intervention to reduce hooning behaviour. As the body of knowledge regarding the factors contributing to hooning increases, along with the identification of potential barriers to the effectiveness of current countermeasures, recommendations for changes in policy and practice for hooning behaviours can be made.

The defence of joint illegal activity must be looked at in context

In Miller v Miller (2011) 85 ALJR 480; [2011] HCA 9 the High Court examined the complex issue of joint illegal activity. The issue before the court was whether a plaintiff who had engaged in an illegal activity with the defendant may claim damages in negligence. In its decision the court analysed the cases of Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA) (1938) 60 CLR 438, Smith v Jenkins (1970) 119 CLR 397, Jackson v Harrison (1978) 138 CLR 438 and Gala v Preston (1991) 172 CLR 243.

Organized crime : policing illegal business entrepreneurialism

Organized crime in the twenty-first century is a knowledge war that poses an incalculable global threat to the world economy and harm to society - the economic and social costs are estimated at upwards of L20 billion a year for the UK alone (SOCA 2006/7). Organized Crime: Policing Illegal Business Entrepreneurialism offers a unique approach to the tackling of this area by exploring how it works through the conceptual framework of a business enterprise. Structured in three parts, the book progresses systematically through key areas and concepts integral to dealing effectively with the myriad contemporary forms of organised crime and provides insights on where, how and when to disrupt and dismantle a criminal business activity through current policing practices and policies. From the initial set up of a crime business through to the long term forecasting for growth and profitability, the authors dissect and analyse the different phases of the business enterprise and propose a 'Knowledge-Managed Policing' (KMP) approach to criminal entrepreneurialism. Combining conceptual and practical issues, this is a must-have reference for all police professionals, policing academics and government policy makers who are interested in a Strategy-led, Intelligence supported, Knowledge-Managed approach to policing illegal business entrepreneurialism.

Successes and challenges in managing illegal road user behaviours

- The role of illegal behaviours in road crashes - Three case studies in managing illegal road user behaviour: an Australian perspective - Current and emerging challenges, including the need to: -reduce punishment avoidance -identify and manage recidivist offenders -address community attitudes and perceptions - Countermeasure implications

Managing Work, Hedonism and 'the Borderline' Between the Legal and Illegal Markets: Two Case Studies of Recreational Heavy Drug Users

In the context of cultural and/or differential ‘normalisation’ of certain forms of drug use, this article describes two case-studies of heavy recreational drug users. The daily lives of these users blur the line between the legal and the illegal; their drug trading is generally as a consumer and ‘friend of a friend’ small dealer in the low-level market. In the first case, problems with management of employment, time and financial budgeting are described; in the second case, such management is accomplished. Discussion refers to: differences between the two in relation to resources and vulnerability to risks, and to leisure/pleasure cultures of hedonism. The research agenda should pay more attention to users who seek to maintain a legitimate lifestyle but who develop problems managing work and their drug-related leisure. Understanding the consumer demand and dealing activity of such users is important in trying to develop a fuller understanding of drug markets.

Effectiveness of policy against illegal disposal of waste

Our objective is to analyze the effectiveness, against the illegal disposal of waste, of a licensing system that has been introduced in a waste management policy. We theoretically find enforcement leverage in the licensing system, and then examine the theoretical result empirically. The results suggest that extending liability to disposers, which forms the basis of the enforcement leverage, deters illegal disposal more effectively than increasing penalties for illegal disposal. We also obtain evidence of transboundary movement of illegal disposal, and find how the court determines penalties for illegal disposal.

From fare evasion to illegal downloads : the cost of defiance

Australian households currently pay the second highest “honesty tax” in the world at $290 per household per year, levied by retailers to offset the $AU1.86 billion in losses they incur from customer theft. Theft is only one type of consumer deviance, which can include behaviours that are against the law, an organisation’s policy, or behaviours that violate normally accepted conduct. An individual’s “deviant behaviour” can vary from one person to the next. My research exploring consumer definitions of right and wrong has found a number of things can inform what an individual thinks is “deviant behaviour”, beyond what the law or organisational policy states as right or wrong. Consumers then use their own justifications to excuse their actions...

"Get new lawyers!"

In James Rubin's account of the Kosovo war, he describes an exchange between Secretary Albright and Robin Cook (the British Foreign Secretary). Cook was explaining that it is difficult for Britain to commit to the war without UN Security Council approval because the legal advice he had received was that such action would be illegal under international law. Albright's response was, simply, "get new lawyers". Rubin "credits" Blair with a "push" that swung the British to "finally agree" that a UN Security Council resolution was "not legally required". Robin Cook later stated in Parliament and that the war was legal. Interestingly, Blair did not. This article does not look at whether or not such an exchange took place; rather look at the ethical issues that such a situation would generate. The article suggests what the ethical obligations of the key legal players in such institutional dramas should be—including governments seeking advice, the lawyers giving it, the ministers reporting it and the opposition in Parliament. The article sets out the particular responsibilities of the lawyers and officials of a Westminster system. It also sets out some of the institutional mechanisms for making it more likely that those obligations are fulfilled—as always through the interaction of obligations by different players that make it more risky for any player to breach his or her ethical obligations. Analogous duties would be faced by the relevant actors in other systems.