Impact of traffic oscillations on freeway crash occurrences

Traffic oscillations are typical features of congested traffic flow that are characterized by recurring decelerations followed by accelerations (stop-and-go driving). The negative environmental impacts of these oscillations are widely accepted, but their impact on traffic safety has been debated. This paper describes the impact of freeway traffic oscillations on traffic safety. This study employs a matched case-control design using high-resolution traffic and crash data from a freeway segment. Traffic conditions prior to each crash were taken as cases, while traffic conditions during the same periods on days without crashes were taken as controls. These were also matched by presence of congestion, geometry and weather. A total of 82 cases and about 80,000 candidate controls were extracted from more than three years of data from 2004 to 2007. Conditional logistic regression models were developed based on the case-control samples. To verify consistency in the results, 20 different sets of controls were randomly extracted from the candidate pool for varying control-case ratios. The results reveal that the standard deviation of speed (thus, oscillations) is a significant variable, with an average odds ratio of about 1.08. This implies that the likelihood of a (rear-end) crash increases by about 8% with an additional unit increase in the standard deviation of speed. The average traffic states prior to crashes were less significant than the speed variations in congestion.

Profiling off-road motorcycle and all-terrain riders in Queensland, Australia

The current research aimed to profile off-road riders to identify specific sub-groups in relation to their risk-related behaviours and perceptions. A total of 235 adults from the Australian state of Queensland who had ridden a motorcycle or ATV off-road in the last 12 months were recruited. A cluster analysis was applied to the survey data. Two distinct clusters of riders were identified, which corresponded with the self-report of injury from an off-road riding crash in the prior 12 months. The injured cluster had a significantly higher mean risk propensity and use of safety equipment, though did not differ on self-reported risk taking. The injured cluster as a whole included a higher percentage of males, was younger, and rode more often for recreational or competitive purposes than the non-crash involved cluster. The results indicate that the crash cluster may be both more aware of the potential risks of riding and more willing to ride in a riskier manner.

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 psychosocial factors influencing aggressive driving behaviour

Many drivers in highly motorised countries believe that aggressive driving is increasing. While the prevalence of the behaviour is difficult to reliably identify, the consequences of on-road aggression can be severe, with extreme cases resulting in property damage, injury and even death. This research program was undertaken to explore the nature of aggressive driving from within the framework of relevant psychological theory in order to enhance our understanding of the behaviour and to inform the development of relevant interventions. To guide the research a provisional ‘working’ definition of aggressive driving was proposed encapsulating the recurrent characteristics of the behaviour cited in the literature. The definition was: “aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted by a driver that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road user and is associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat”. Two main theoretical perspectives informed the program of research. The first was Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, which identifies both the person-related and situational characteristics that contribute to aggressive driving, as well as proposing that aggressive behaviours can serve either an ‘instrumental’ or ‘hostile’ function. The second main perspective was Anderson and Bushman’s (2002) General Aggression Model. In contrast to Shinar’s model, the General Aggression Model reflects a broader perspective on human aggression that facilitates a more comprehensive examination of the emotional and cognitive aspects of aggressive behaviour. Study One (n = 48) examined aggressive driving behaviour from the perspective of young drivers as an at-risk group and involved conducting six focus groups, with eight participants in each. Qualitative analyses identified multiple situational and person-related factors that contribute to on-road aggression. Consistent with human aggression theory, examination of self-reported experiences of aggressive driving identified key psychological elements and processes that are experienced during on-road aggression. Participants cited several emotions experienced during an on-road incident: annoyance, frustration, anger, threat and excitement. Findings also suggest that off-road generated stress may transfer to the on-road environment, at times having severe consequences including crash involvement. Young drivers also appeared quick to experience negative attributions about the other driver, some having additional thoughts of taking action. Additionally, the results showed little difference between males and females in the severity of behavioural responses they were prepared to adopt, although females appeared more likely to displace their negative emotions. Following the self-reported on-road incident, evidence was also found of a post-event influence, with females being more likely to experience ongoing emotional effects after the event. This finding was evidenced by ruminating thoughts or distraction from tasks. However, the impact of such a post-event influence on later behaviours or interpersonal interactions appears to be minimal. Study Two involved the quantitative analysis of n = 926 surveys completed by a wide age range of drivers from across Queensland. The study aimed to explore the relationships between the theoretical components of aggressive driving that were identified in the literature review, and refined based on the findings of Study One. Regression analyses were used to examine participant emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to two differing on-road scenarios whilst exploring the proposed theoretical framework. A number of socio-demographic, state and trait person-related variables such as age, pre-study emotions, trait aggression and problem-solving style were found to predict the likelihood of a negative emotional response such as frustration, anger, perceived threat, negative attributions and the likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile behaviour in response to Scenarios One and Two. Complex relationships were found to exist between the variables, however, they were interpretable based on the literature review findings. Factor analysis revealed evidence supporting Shinar’s (1998) dichotomous description of on-road aggressive behaviours as being instrumental or hostile. The second stage of Study Two used logistic regression to examine the factors that predicted the potentially hostile aggressive drivers (n = 88) within the sample. These drivers were those who indicated a preparedness to engage in direct acts of interpersonal aggression on the road. Young, male drivers 17–24 years of age were more likely to be classified as potentially hostile aggressive drivers. Young drivers (17–24 years) also scored significantly higher than other drivers on all subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and on the ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive careless style’ subscales of the Social Problem Solving Inventory – Revised (D’Zurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). The potentially hostile aggressive drivers were also significantly more likely to engage in speeding and drink/drug driving behaviour. With regard to the emotional, cognitive and behavioural variables examined, the potentially hostile aggressive driver group also scored significantly higher than the ‘other driver’ group on most variables examined in the proposed theoretical framework. The variables contained in the framework of aggressive driving reliably distinguished potentially hostile aggressive drivers from other drivers (Nagalkerke R2 = .39). Study Three used a case study approach to conduct an in-depth examination of the psychosocial characteristics of n = 10 (9 males and 1 female) self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers. The self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers were aged 24–55 years of age. A large proportion of these drivers reported a Year 10 education or better and average–above average incomes. As a group, the drivers reported committing a number of speeding and unlicensed driving offences in the past three years and extensive histories of violations outside of this period. Considerable evidence was also found of exposure to a range of developmental risk factors for aggression that may have contributed to the driver’s on-road expression of aggression. These drivers scored significantly higher on the Aggression Questionnaire subscales and Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised subscales, ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive/careless style’, than the general sample of drivers included in Study Two. The hostile aggressive driver also scored significantly higher on the Barrett Impulsivity Scale – 11 (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995) measure of impulsivity than a male ‘inmate’, or female ‘general psychiatric’ comparison group. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982), the self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers scored equal or higher scores than the comparison group of incarcerated individuals on the subscale measures of chemical abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social tendencies and self-depreciation. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey personality profiles, seven participants were profiled ‘markedly anti-social’, two were profiled ‘negative-explosive’ and one was profiled as ‘self-centred’. Qualitative analysis of the ten case study self-reports of on-road hostile aggression revealed a similar range of on-road situational factors to those identified in the literature review and Study One. Six of the case studies reported off-road generated stress that they believed contributed to the episodes of aggressive driving they recalled. Intense ‘anger’ or ‘rage’ were most frequently used to describe the emotions experienced in response to the perceived provocation. Less frequently ‘excitement’ and ‘fear’ were cited as relevant emotions. Notably, five of the case studies experienced difficulty articulating their emotions, suggesting emotional difficulties. Consistent with Study Two, these drivers reported negative attributions and most had thoughts of aggressive actions they would like to take. Similarly, these drivers adopted both instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours during the self-reported incident. Nine participants showed little or no remorse for their behaviour and these drivers also appeared to exhibit low levels of personal insight. Interestingly, few incidents were brought to the attention of the authorities. Further, examination of the person-related characteristics of these drivers indicated that they may be more likely to have come from difficult or dysfunctional backgrounds and to have a history of anti-social behaviours on and off the road. The research program has several key theoretical implications. While many of the findings supported Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, two key areas of difference emerged. Firstly, aggressive driving behaviour does not always appear to be frustration driven, but can also be driven by feelings of excitation (consistent with the tenets of the General Aggression Model). Secondly, while the findings supported a distinction being made between instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours, the characteristics of these two types of behaviours require more examination. For example, Shinar (1998) proposes that a driver will adopt an instrumental aggressive behaviour when their progress is impeded if it allows them to achieve their immediate goals (e.g. reaching their destination as quickly as possible); whereas they will engage in hostile aggressive behaviour if their path to their goal is blocked. However, the current results question this assertion, since many of the hostile aggressive drivers studied appeared prepared to engage in hostile acts irrespective of whether their goal was blocked or not. In fact, their behaviour appeared to be characterised by a preparedness to abandon their immediate goals (even if for a short period of time) in order to express their aggression. The use of the General Aggression Model enabled an examination of the three components of the ‘present internal state’ comprising emotions, cognitions and arousal and how these influence the likelihood of a person responding aggressively to an on-road situation. This provided a detailed insight into both the cognitive and emotional aspects of aggressive driving that have important implications for the design of relevant countermeasures. For example, the findings highlighted the potential value of utilising Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with aggressive drivers, particularly the more hostile offenders. Similarly, educational efforts need to be mindful of the way that person-related factors appear to influence one’s perception of another driver’s behaviour as aggressive or benign. Those drivers with a predisposition for aggression were more likely to perceive aggression or ‘wrong doing’ in an ambiguous on-road situation and respond with instrumental and/or hostile behaviour, highlighting the importance of perceptual processes in aggressive driving behaviour.

Designing university, government and industry community engagement to build informed and effective interventions in the area of road safety

Individuals, community organisations and industry have always been involved to varying degrees in efforts to address the Queensland road toll. Traditionally, road crash prevention efforts have been led by state and local government organisations. While community and industry groups have sometimes become involved (e.g. Driver Reviver campaign), their efforts have largely been uncoordinated and under-resourced. A common strength of these initiatives lies in the energy, enthusiasm and persistence of community-based efforts. Conversely, a weakness has sometimes been the lack of knowledge, awareness or prioritisation of evidence-based interventions or their capacity to build on collaborative efforts. In 2000, the Queensland University of Technology’s Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q) identified this issue as an opportunity to bridge practice and research and began acknowledging a selection of these initiatives, in partnership with the RACQ, through the Queensland Road Safety Awards program. After nine years it became apparent there was need to strengthen this connection, with the Centre establishing a Community Engagement Workshop in 2009 as part of the overall Awards program. With an aim of providing community participants opportunities to see, hear and discuss the experiences of others, this event was further developed in 2010, and with the collaboration of the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, the RACQ, Queensland Police Service and Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd, a stand-alone Queensland Road Safety Awards Community Engagement Workshop was held in 2010. Each collaborating organisation recognised a need to mobilise the community through effective information and knowledge sharing, and recognised that learning and discussion can influence lasting behaviour change and action in this often emotive, yet not always evidence-based, area. This free event featured a number of speakers representing successful projects from around Australia and overseas. Attendees were encouraged to interact with the speakers, to ask questions, and most importantly, build connections with other attendees to build a ‘community road safety army’ all working throughout Australia on projects underpinned by evaluated research. The workshop facilitated the integration of research, policy and grass-roots action enhancing the success of community road safety initiatives. For collaboration partners, the event enabled them to transfer their knowledge in an engaged approach, working within a more personal communication process. An analysis of the success factors for this event identified openness to community groups and individuals, relevance of content to local initiatives, generous support with the provision of online materials and ongoing communication with key staff members as critical and supports the view that the university can directly provide both the leadership and the research needed for effective and credible community-based initiatives to address injury and death on the roads.