The speed paradox : the misalignment between driver attitudes and speeding behaviour

This paper reports on a study investigating preferred driving speeds and frequency of speeding of 320 Queensland drivers. Despite growing community concern about speeding and extensive research linking it to road trauma, speeding remains a pervasive, and arguably, socially acceptable behaviour. This presents an apparent paradox regarding the mismatch between beliefs and behaviours, and highlights the necessity to better understand the factors contributing to speeding. Utilising self-reported behaviour and attitudinal measures, results of this study support the notion of a speed paradox. Two thirds of participants agreed that exceeding the limit is not worth the risks nor is it okay to exceed the posted limit. Despite this, more than half (58.4%) of the participants reported a preference to exceed the 100km/hour speed limit, with one third preferring to do so by 10 to 20 km/hour. Further, mean preferred driving speeds on both urban and open roads suggest a perceived enforcement tolerance of 10%, suggesting that posted limits have limited direct influence on speed choice. Factors that significantly predicted the frequency of speeding included: exposure to role models who speed; favourable attitudes to speeding; experiences of punishment avoidance; and the perceived certainty of punishment for speeding. These findings have important policy implications, particularly relating to the use of enforcement tolerances.

Redesigning the inspection blitz in the post WorkChoices environment

The regulatory enforcement literature proposes a continuum with two principal perspectives to gaining compliance with regulations at its extremes – a compliance approach and a deterrence approach. Within these perspectives a range of strategies and tools are used to support the broad intent of an enforcement agency. One tool is the inspection blitz, concentrating resources where significant non-compliance is suspected. While agencies enforcing minimum labour standards in the Australian federal jurisdiction have traditionally used the blitz strategy as an occasional tool, it is now more regularly used. This paper examines the blitz as an enforcement tool, placing it within the compliance/deterrence perspectives, before exploring its use by the Workplace Ombudsman/Fair Work Ombudsman. We argue that multiple factors have led to the blitz’s redesign in the post-Work Choices environment, and that its current framework and persuasive compliance nature is not appropriate for all situations.

Do warnings deter rather than produce more sophisticated malingering?

Following Youngjohn, Lees-Haley, and Binder's (1999) comment on Johnson and Lesniak-Karpiak's (1997) study that warnings lead to more subtle malingering, researchers have sought to better understand warning effects. However, such studies have been largely atheoretical and may have confounded warning and coaching. This study examined the effect on malingering of a warning that was based on criminological-sociological concepts derived from the rational choice model of deterrence theory. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to a control group, an unwarned simulator group, or one of two warned simulator groups. The warning groups comprised low- and high-level conditions depending on warning intensity. Simulator participants received no coaching about how to fake tests. Outcome variables were scores derived from the Test of Memory Malingering and Wechsler Memory Scale-III. When the rate of malingering was compared across the four groups, a high-level warning effect was found such that warned participants were significantly less likely to exaggerate than unwarned simulators. In an exploratory follow-up analysis, the warned groups were divided into those who reported malingering and those who did not report malingering, and the performance of these groups was compared to that of unwarned simulators and controls. Using this approach, results showed that participants who were deterred from malingering by warning performed no worse than controls. However, on a small number of tests, self-reported malingerers in the low-level warning group appeared less impaired than unwarned simulators. This pattern was not observed in the high-level warning condition. Although cautious interpretation of findings is necessitated by the exploratory nature of some analyses, overall results suggest that using a carefully designed warning may be useful for reducing the rate of malingering. The combination of some noteworthy effect sizes, despite low power and the small size of some groups, suggests that further investigation of the effects of warnings needs to continue to determine their effect more fully.

Examining psychosocial influences on speeding in Australian and Chinese contexts : a social learning approach

Speeding remains a significant contributing factor to road trauma internationally, despite increasingly sophisticated speed management strategies being adopted around the world. Increases in travel speed are associated with increases in crash risk and crash severity. As speed choice is a voluntary behaviour, driver perceptions are important to our understanding of speeding and, importantly, to designing effective behavioural countermeasures. The four studies conducted in this program of research represent a comprehensive approach to examining psychosocial influences on driving speeds in two countries that are at very different levels of road safety development: Australia and China. Akers’ social learning theory (SLT) was selected as the theoretical framework underpinning this research and guided the development of key research hypotheses. This theory was chosen because of its ability to encompass psychological, sociological, and criminological perspectives in understanding behaviour, each of which has relevance to speeding. A mixed-method design was used to explore the personal, social, and legal influences on speeding among car drivers in Queensland (Australia) and Beijing (China). Study 1 was a qualitative exploration, via focus group interviews, of speeding among 67 car drivers recruited from south east Queensland. Participants were assigned to groups based on their age and gender, and additionally, according to whether they self-identified as speeding excessively or rarely. This study aimed to elicit information about how drivers conceptualise speeding as well as the social and legal influences on driving speeds. The findings revealed a wide variety of reasons and circumstances that appear to be used as personal justifications for exceeding speed limits. Driver perceptions of speeding as personally and socially acceptable, as well as safe and necessary were common. Perceptions of an absence of danger associated with faster driving speeds were evident, particularly with respect to driving alone. An important distinction between the speed-based groups related to the attention given to the driving task. Rare speeders expressed strong beliefs about the need to be mindful of safety (self and others) while excessive speeders referred to the driving task as automatic, an absent-minded endeavour, and to speeding as a necessity in order to remain alert and reduce boredom. For many drivers in this study, compliance with speed limits was expressed as discretionary rather than mandatory. Social factors, such as peer and parental influence were widely discussed in Study 1 and perceptions of widespread community acceptance of speeding were noted. In some instances, the perception that ‘everybody speeds’ appeared to act as one rationale for the need to raise speed limits. Self-presentation, or wanting to project a positive image of self was noted, particularly with respect to concealing speeding infringements from others to protect one’s image as a trustworthy and safe driver. The influence of legal factors was also evident. Legal sanctions do not appear to influence all drivers to the same extent. For instance, fear of apprehension appeared to play a role in reducing speeding for many, although previous experiences of detection and legal sanctions seemed to have had limited influence on reducing speeding among some drivers. Disregard for sanctions (e.g., driving while suspended), fraudulent demerit point use, and other strategies to avoid detection and punishment were widely and openly discussed. In Study 2, 833 drivers were recruited from roadside service stations in metropolitan and regional locations in Queensland. A quantitative research strategy assessed the relative contribution of personal, social, and legal factors to recent and future self-reported speeding (i.e., frequency of speeding and intentions to speed in the future). Multivariate analyses examining a range of factors drawn from SLT revealed that factors including self-identity (i.e., identifying as someone who speeds), favourable definitions (attitudes) towards speeding, personal experiences of avoiding detection and punishment for speeding, and perceptions of family and friends as accepting of speeding were all significantly associated with greater self-reported speeding. Study 3 was an exploratory, qualitative investigation of psychosocial factors associated with speeding among 35 Chinese drivers who were recruited from the membership of a motoring organisation and a university in Beijing. Six focus groups were conducted to explore similar issues to those examined in Study 1. The findings of Study 3 revealed many similarities with respect to the themes that arose in Australia. For example, there were similarities regarding personal justifications for speeding, such as the perception that posted limits are unreasonably low, the belief that individual drivers are able to determine safe travel speeds according to personal comfort with driving fast, and the belief that drivers possess adequate skills to control a vehicle at high speed. Strategies to avoid detection and punishment were also noted, though they appeared more widespread in China and also appeared, in some cases, to involve the use of a third party, a topic that was not reported by Australian drivers. Additionally, higher perceived enforcement tolerance thresholds were discussed by Chinese participants. Overall, the findings indicated perceptions of a high degree of community acceptance of speeding and a perceived lack of risk associated with speeds that were well above posted speed limits. Study 4 extended the exploratory research phase in China with a quantitative investigation involving 299 car drivers recruited from car washes in Beijing. Results revealed a relatively inexperienced sample with less than 5 years driving experience, on average. One third of participants perceived that the certainty of penalties when apprehended was low and a similar proportion of Chinese participants reported having previously avoided legal penalties when apprehended for speeding. Approximately half of the sample reported that legal penalties for speeding were ‘minimally to not at all’ severe. Multivariate analyses revealed that past experiences of avoiding detection and punishment for speeding, as well as favourable attitudes towards speeding, and perceptions of strong community acceptance of speeding were most strongly associated with greater self-reported speeding in the Chinese sample. Overall, the results of this research make several important theoretical contributions to the road safety literature. Akers’ social learning theory was found to be robust across cultural contexts with respect to speeding; similar amounts of variance were explained in self-reported speeding in the quantitative studies conducted in Australia and China. Historically, SLT was devised as a theory of deviance and posits that deviance and conformity are learned in the same way, with the balance of influence stemming from the ways in which behaviour is rewarded and punished (Akers, 1998). This perspective suggests that those who speed and those who do not are influenced by the same mechanisms. The inclusion of drivers from both ends of the ‘speeding spectrum’ in Study 1 provided an opportunity to examine the wider utility of SLT across the full range of the behaviour. One may question the use of a theory of deviance to investigate speeding, a behaviour that could, arguably, be described as socially acceptable and prevalent. However, SLT seemed particularly relevant to investigating speeding because of its inclusion of association, imitation, and reinforcement variables which reflect the breadth of factors already found to be potentially influential on driving speeds. In addition, driving is a learned behaviour requiring observation, guidance, and practice. Thus, the reinforcement and imitation concepts are particularly relevant to this behaviour. Finally, current speed management practices are largely enforcement-based and rely on the principles of behavioural reinforcement captured within the reinforcement component of SLT. Thus, the application of SLT to a behaviour such as speeding offers promise in advancing our understanding of the factors that influence speeding, as well as extending our knowledge of the application of SLT. Moreover, SLT could act as a valuable theoretical framework with which to examine other illegal driving behaviours that may not necessarily be seen as deviant by the community (e.g., mobile phone use while driving). This research also made unique contributions to advancing our understanding of the key components and the overall structure of Akers’ social learning theory. The broader SLT literature is lacking in terms of a thorough structural understanding of the component parts of the theory. For instance, debate exists regarding the relevance of, and necessity for including broader social influences in the model as captured by differential association. In the current research, two alternative SLT models were specified and tested in order to better understand the nature and extent of the influence of differential association on behaviour. Importantly, the results indicated that differential association was able to make a unique contribution to explaining self-reported speeding, thereby negating the call to exclude it from the model. The results also demonstrated that imitation was a discrete theoretical concept that should also be retained in the model. The results suggest a need to further explore and specify mechanisms of social influence in the SLT model. In addition, a novel approach was used to operationalise SLT variables by including concepts drawn from contemporary social psychological and deterrence-based research to enhance and extend the way that SLT variables have traditionally been examined. Differential reinforcement was conceptualised according to behavioural reinforcement principles (i.e., positive and negative reinforcement and punishment) and incorporated concepts of affective beliefs, anticipated regret, and deterrence-related concepts. Although implicit in descriptions of SLT, little research has, to date, made use of the broad range of reinforcement principles to understand the factors that encourage or inhibit behaviour. This approach has particular significance to road user behaviours in general because of the deterrence-based nature of many road safety countermeasures. The concept of self-identity was also included in the model and was found to be consistent with the definitions component of SLT. A final theoretical contribution was the specification and testing of a full measurement model prior to model testing using structural equation modelling. This process is recommended in order to reduce measurement error by providing an examination of the psychometric properties of the data prior to full model testing. Despite calls for such work for a number of decades, the current work appears to be the only example of a full measurement model of SLT. There were also a number of important practical implications that emerged from this program of research. Firstly, perceptions regarding speed enforcement tolerance thresholds were highlighted as a salient influence on driving speeds in both countries. The issue of enforcement tolerance levels generated considerable discussion among drivers in both countries, with Australian drivers reporting lower perceived tolerance levels than Chinese drivers. It was clear that many drivers used the concept of an enforcement tolerance in determining their driving speed, primarily with the desire to drive faster than the posted speed limit, yet remaining within a speed range that would preclude apprehension by police. The quantitative results from Studies 2 and 4 added support to these qualitative findings. Together, the findings supported previous research and suggested that a travel speed may not be seen as illegal until that speed reaches a level over the prescribed enforcement tolerance threshold. In other words, the enforcement tolerance appears to act as a ‘de facto’ speed limit, replacing the posted limit in the minds of some drivers. The findings from the two studies conducted in China (Studies 2 and 4) further highlighted the link between perceived enforcement tolerances and a ‘de facto’ speed limit. Drivers openly discussed driving at speeds that were well above posted speed limits and some participants noted their preference for driving at speeds close to ‘50% above’ the posted limit. This preference appeared to be shaped by the perception that the same penalty would be imposed if apprehended, irrespective of what speed they travelling (at least up to 50% above the limit). Further research is required to determine whether the perceptions of Chinese drivers are mainly influenced by the Law of the People’s Republic of China or by operational practices. Together, the findings from both studies in China indicate that there may be scope to refine enforcement tolerance levels, as has happened in other jurisdictions internationally over time, in order to reduce speeding. Any attempts to do so would likely be assisted by the provision of information about the legitimacy and purpose of speed limits as well as risk factors associated with speeding because these issues were raised by Chinese participants in the qualitative research phase. Another important practical implication of this research for speed management in China is the way in which penalties are determined. Chinese drivers described perceptions of unfairness and a lack of transparency in the enforcement system because they were unsure of the penalty that they would receive if apprehended. Steps to enhance the perceived certainty and consistency of the system to promote a more equitable approach to detection and punishment would appear to be welcomed by the general driving public and would be more consistent with the intended theoretical (deterrence) basis that underpins the current speed enforcement approach. The use of mandatory, fixed penalties may assist in this regard. In many countries, speeding attracts penalties that are dependent on the severity of the offence. In China, there may be safety benefits gained from the introduction of a similar graduated scale of speeding penalties and fixed penalties might also help to address the issue of uncertainty about penalties and related perceptions of unfairness. Such advancements would be in keeping with the principles of best practice for speed management as identified by the World Health Organisation. Another practical implication relating to legal penalties, and applicable to both cultural contexts, relates to the issues of detection and punishment avoidance. These two concepts appeared to strongly influence speeding in the current samples. In Australia, detection avoidance strategies reported by participants generally involved activities that are not illegal (e.g., site learning and remaining watchful for police vehicles). The results from China were similar, although a greater range of strategies were reported. The most common strategy reported in both countries for avoiding detection when speeding was site learning, or familiarisation with speed camera locations. However, a range of illegal practices were also described by Chinese drivers (e.g., tampering with or removing vehicle registration plates so as to render the vehicle unidentifiable on camera and use of in-vehicle radar detectors). With regard to avoiding punishment when apprehended, a range of strategies were reported by drivers from both countries, although a greater range of strategies were reported by Chinese drivers. As the results of the current research indicated that detection avoidance was strongly associated with greater self-reported speeding in both samples, efforts to reduce avoidance opportunities are strongly recommended. The practice of randomly scheduling speed camera locations, as is current practice in Queensland, offers one way to minimise site learning. The findings of this research indicated that this practice should continue. However, they also indicated that additional strategies are needed to reduce opportunities to evade detection. The use of point-to-point speed detection (also known as sectio

Trends in impaired driving in Australia in 2010 : a status report

This paper reviews the status of alcohol, drugs and traffic safety in Australia, with particular emphasis on developments in the period 2008-2010. Australian jurisdictions have made impressive improvements in road safety since the early 1970s. Enforcement and public education campaigns that specifically target drink driving have been successful, with resultant long-term reduction in alcohol-related fatalities. There is a high level of community disapproval of drink driving and strong support for countermeasures. Many best-practice countermeasures targeting impaired driving are in place, including general prevention/ deterrence programs such as random breath testing (RBT), random roadside drug testing legal alcohol limits, responsible service of alcohol programs, public education and advertising campaigns and designated driver programs, and offender management programs such as driver licensing penalties and fines, alcohol ignition interlocks and vehicle impoundment for high risk drink drivers, and offender education programs. There continue to be enhancements occurring, particularly in the areas of drug-impaired driving and offender management, but also in addressing the fundamental policy and legislative framework to address impaired driving (e.g., a current national debate about lowering the permissible blood alcohol for all drivers from 0.05 to 0.02 or 0.00 gm/100 ml BAC). However, there are major challenges that may be impacting on programs targeting impaired driving, including the rapid development of a binge drinking culture among young Australians, the extension of trading hours of licensed premises, continued problems with secondary supply of alcohol to minors, and increases in the marketing of alcopops and ready-to-drink spirit-based beverages. This paper addresses the question: Are impaired driving countermeasures in Australia continuing to achieve reductions in road traumas and rates of offending, or are they plateauing? If they are plateauing, is this due to declining effectiveness of countermeasures or the need to ‘hold the line’ against societal influences encouraging impaired driving?

Social control of the drinking driver

It is more that 20 years since the “Social Control of the Drink Driver” edited by Laurence, Snortum and Zimring (1988) were published. It was, and remains a major examination of the issue involving 17 scientists from all relevant disciplines and policy centres and represents the current practice and experience at the time. While much of, but by no means all, the content is centred on the North American experience the scholarship and range of research data explored through the investigative lens of lawyers, pharmacologists, psychologists, sociologists, criminologists and economists covers all the major issues being examined in Europe, and Australia at the time. More importantly, it presents the policy aspirations and goals of nine countries and includes a comparison of deterrence and the legal context in six countries; emerging technologies for control and the potential contributions of education and rehabilitation. The experience of promoting evidence based policies and practices are generally experienced in all countries as both laborious and painfully slow. However, this ICADTS meeting in Norway provides an opportunity to challenge these feelings by re-examining the current situation compared with that documented over 20yrs ago. This presentation will undertake a reality check on just what we have achieved within that time and try to attribute success and failure towards recommendations for our future endeavours.

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.

Response : letter to the editor by Al-Azri and Al-Maniri

Firstly, the authors would like to thank the editor for the opportunity to respond to Dr Al-Azri’s and Dr Al-Maniri’s letter. Secondly, while the current authors also accept that deterrence-based approaches should act as only one corner-stone of a suite of interventions and public policy initiatives designed to improve road safety, deterrence-based approaches have nonetheless consistently proven to be a valuable resource to improve road safety. Dr Al-Azri and Dr Al-Maniri reinforce their assertion about the limited utility of deterrence by citing drink driving research, and the issue of drink driving is particularly relevant within the current context given that the problem of driving after drinking has historically been addressed through deterrence-based approaches. While the effectiveness of deterrence-based approaches to reduce drink driving will always be dependent upon a range of situational and contextual factors (including police enforcement practices, cultural norms, etc), the utilisation of this approach has proven particularly effective within Queensland, Australia. For example, a relatively recent comprehensive review of Random Breath Testing in Queensland demonstrated that this initiative not only had a deterrent impact upon self-reported intentions to drink and drive, but was also found to have significantly reduced alcohol-related fatalities in the state. However, the authors agree that deterrence-based approaches can be particularly transient and thus require constant “topping up” not least through sustained public reinforcement, which was clearly articulated in the seminal work by Homel.

Exploring the theoretical underpinnings of driving whilst influenced by illicit substances

An increasing number of studies are highlighting the alarming proportion of motorists that drive after having consumed illicit drugs. However presently, little attention has focused on the factors that may facilitate drug driving from a criminogenic paradigm. This study evaluated the contribution of deterrence, defiance, and deviance theories on intentions to drug drive to determine factors that might facilitate or reduce this behaviour. A total of 922 individuals completed a questionnaire that assessed frequency of drug use and a variety of perceptions on deterrence, defiance, and deviance constructs. The analysis showed that the defiance constructs (i.e., experiencing feelings of shame and believing in the legitimacy of sanctioning authority) and the deviance constructs (i.e., moral attachment to the norm and having a criminal conviction) were predictive of drug driving intentions. The facets of deterrence theory were not found to be significant predictors. Ultimately, this study illustrates that a range of behavioural and perceptual factors have the capacity to influence decisions to drug drive. As a result, there appears the need to extend the focus of research endeavours beyond legal sanctions to examine other factors that may be utilised to both understand the aetiology of drug driving as well as increase the possibility of compliance with the corresponding legislation.

A comparison of the psychological, social, and legal factors contributing to speeding and drink driving behaviour

Within Australia, motor vehicle injury is the leading cause of hospital admissions and fatalities. Road crash data reveals that among the factors contributing to crashes in Queensland, speed and alcohol continue to be overrepresented. While alcohol is the number one contributing factor to fatal crashes, speeding also contributes to a high proportion of crashes. Research indicates that risky driving is an important contributor to road crashes. However, it has been debated whether all risky driving behaviours are similar enough to be explained by the same combination of factors. Further, road safety authorities have traditionally relied upon deterrence based countermeasures to reduce the incidence of illegal driving behaviours such as speeding and drink driving. However, more recent research has focussed on social factors to explain illegal driving behaviours. The purpose of this research was to examine and compare the psychological, legal, and social factors contributing to two illegal driving behaviours: exceeding the posted speed limit and driving when over the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for the drivers licence type. Complementary theoretical perspectives were chosen to comprehensively examine these two behaviours including Akers’ social learning theory, Stafford and Warr’s expanded deterrence theory, and personality perspectives encompassing alcohol misuse, sensation seeking, and Type-A behaviour pattern. The program of research consisted of two phases: a preliminary pilot study, and the main quantitative phase. The preliminary pilot study was undertaken to inform the development of the quantitative study and to ensure the clarity of the theoretical constructs operationalised in this research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 Queensland drivers recruited from Queensland Transport Licensing Centres and Queensland University of Technology (QUT). These interviews demonstrated that the majority of participants had engaged in at least one of the behaviours, or knew of someone who had. It was also found among these drivers that the social environment in which both behaviours operated, including family and friends, and the social rewards and punishments associated with the behaviours, are important in their decision making. The main quantitative phase of the research involved a cross-sectional survey of 547 Queensland licensed drivers. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between speeding and drink driving and whether there were any similarities or differences in the factors that contribute to a driver’s decision to engage in one or the other. A comparison of the participants self-reported speeding and self-reported drink driving behaviour demonstrated that there was a weak positive association between these two behaviours. Further, participants reported engaging in more frequent speeding at both low (i.e., up to 10 kilometres per hour) and high (i.e., 10 kilometres per hour or more) levels, than engaging in drink driving behaviour. It was noted that those who indicated they drove when they may be over the legal limit for their licence type, more frequently exceeded the posted speed limit by 10 kilometres per hour or more than those who complied with the regulatory limits for drink driving. A series of regression analyses were conducted to investigate the factors that predict self-reported speeding, self-reported drink driving, and the preparedness to engage in both behaviours. In relation to self-reported speeding (n = 465), it was found that among the sociodemographic and person-related factors, younger drivers and those who score high on measures of sensation seeking were more likely to report exceeding the posted speed limit. In addition, among the legal and psychosocial factors it was observed that direct exposure to punishment (i.e., being detected by police), direct punishment avoidance (i.e., engaging in an illegal driving behaviour and not being detected by police), personal definitions (i.e., personal orientation or attitudes toward the behaviour), both the normative and behavioural dimensions of differential association (i.e., refers to both the orientation or attitude of their friends and family, as well as the behaviour of these individuals), and anticipated punishments were significant predictors of self-reported speeding. It was interesting to note that associating with significant others who held unfavourable definitions towards speeding (the normative dimension of differential association) and anticipating punishments from others were both significant predictors of a reduction in self-reported speeding. In relation to self-reported drink driving (n = 462), a logistic regression analysis indicated that there were a number of significant predictors which increased the likelihood of whether participants had driven in the last six months when they thought they may have been over the legal alcohol limit. These included: experiences of direct punishment avoidance; having a family member convicted of drink driving; higher levels of Type-A behaviour pattern; greater alcohol misuse (as measured by the AUDIT); and the normative dimension of differential association (i.e., associating with others who held favourable attitudes to drink driving). A final logistic regression analysis examined the predictors of whether the participants reported engaging in both drink driving and speeding versus those who reported engaging in only speeding (the more common of the two behaviours) (n = 465). It was found that experiences of punishment avoidance for speeding decreased the likelihood of engaging in both speeding and drink driving; whereas in the case of drink driving, direct punishment avoidance increased the likelihood of engaging in both behaviours. It was also noted that holding favourable personal definitions toward speeding and drink driving, as well as higher levels of on Type-A behaviour pattern, and greater alcohol misuse significantly increased the likelihood of engaging in both speeding and drink driving. This research has demonstrated that the compliance with the regulatory limits was much higher for drink driving than it was for speeding. It is acknowledged that while speed limits are a fundamental component of speed management practices in Australia, the countermeasures applied to both speeding and drink driving do not appear to elicit the same level of compliance across the driving population. Further, the findings suggest that while the principles underpinning the current regime of deterrence based countermeasures are sound, current enforcement practices are insufficient to force compliance among the driving population, particularly in the case of speeding. Future research should further examine the degree of overlap between speeding and drink driving behaviour and whether punishment avoidance experiences for a specific illegal driving behaviour serve to undermine the deterrent effect of countermeasures aimed at reducing the incidence of another illegal driving behaviour. Furthermore, future work should seek to understand the factors which predict engaging in speeding and drink driving behaviours at the same time. Speeding has shown itself to be a pervasive and persistent behaviour, hence it would be useful to examine why road safety authorities have been successful in convincing the majority of drivers of the dangers of drink driving, but not those associated with speeding. In conclusion, the challenge for road safety practitioners will be to convince drivers that speeding and drink driving are equally risky behaviours, with the ultimate goal to reduce the prevalence of both behaviours.

Victoria's “Day in Prison Program” : an evaluation and critique

The use of “Day in Prison” programs to deter young adult offenders is a concept which originated in the United States and was replicated in Australia during the late 1970s. After almost a decade of uncertainty this model of ‘crime prevention’ re-emerged in Victoria with the introduction of a pilot “Day in Prison” program. This article traces the development and operation of the Victorian experience and provides evaluation research findings which conclude that coercive, intimidatory and degrading aversion techniques should not be utilised by the criminal justice system for the purposes of individual deterrence.

The effectiveness of traffic policing in reducing traffic crashes

Many governments throughout the world rely heavily on traffic law enforcement programs to modify driver behaviour and enhance road safety. There are two related functions of traffic law enforcement, apprehension and deterrence, and these are achieved through three processes: the establishment of traffic laws, the policing of those laws, and the application of penalties and sanctions to offenders. Traffic policing programs can vary by visibility (overt or covert) and deployment methods (scheduled and non-scheduled), while sanctions can serve to constrain, deter or reform offending behaviour. This chapter will review the effectiveness of traffic law enforcement strategies from the perspective of a range of high-risk, illegal driving behaviours including drink/drug driving, speeding, seat belt use and red light running. Additionally, this chapter discusses how traffic police are increasingly using technology to enforce traffic laws and thus reduce crashes. The chapter concludes that effective traffic policing involves a range of both overt and covert operations and includes a mix of automatic and more traditional manual enforcement methods. It is important to increase both the perceived and actual risk of detection by ensuring that traffic law enforcement operations are sufficiently intensive, unpredictable in nature and conducted as widely as possible across the road network. A key means of maintaining the unpredictability of operations is through the random deployment of enforcement and/or the random checking of drivers. The impact of traffic enforcement is also heightened when it is supported by public education campaigns. In the future, technological improvements will allow the use of more innovative enforcement strategies. Finally, further research is needed to continue the development of traffic policing approaches and address emerging road safety issues.

Big-five personality factors affecting driving behaviours

The factors affecting driving behaviors are various and interact simultaneously. Therefore, study of their correlations affecting on driving behaviors is of interest. This paper reports a questionnaire survey in China, focusing on the effect of Big-Five factors on speeding, drink driving, and distracted driving while Akers' social learning theory and Homel's deterrence theory were applied. The results showed that personalities had significant effect on speeding and drink driving; social factors had significant effect on speeding and distracted driving; deterrence had significant effect on speeding and drink driving; however, social learning theory did not contribute to drink driving; deterrence did not affect distracted driving. The results were discussed along with the limitation of this study.

The iatrogenic reflex and belief that repression can coercively suppress asymmetric coercive violence : does very robust action by the government decrease functional support for insurgents?

Non-state insurgent actors are too weak to compel powerful adversaries to their will, so they use violence to coerce. A principal objective is to grow and sustain violent resistance to the point that it either militarily challenges the state, or more commonly, generates unacceptable political costs. To survive, insurgents must shift popular support away from the state and to grow they must secure it. State actor policies and actions perceived as illegitimate and oppressive by the insurgent constituency can generate these shifts. A promising insurgent strategy is to attack states in ways that lead angry publics and leaders to discount the historically established risks and take flawed but popular decisions to use repressive measures. Such decisions may be enabled by a visceral belief in the power of coercion and selective use of examples of where robust measures have indeed suppressed resistance. To avoid such counterproductive behaviours the cases of apparent 'successful repression' must be understood. This thesis tests whether robust state action is correlated with reduced support for insurgents, analyses the causal mechanisms of such shifts and examines whether such reduction is because of compulsion or coercion? The approach is founded on prior research by the RAND Corporation which analysed the 30 insurgencies most recently resolved worldwide to determine factors of counterinsurgent success. This new study first re-analyses their data at a finer resolution with new queries that investigate the relationship between repression and insurgent active support. Having determined that, in general, repression does not correlate with decreased insurgent support, this study then analyses two cases in which the data suggests repression seems likely to be reducing insurgent support: the PKK in Turkey and the insurgency against the Vietnamese-sponsored regime after their ousting of the Khmer Rouge. It applies 'structured-focused' case analysis with questions partly built from the insurgency model of Leites and Wolf, who are associated with the advocacy of US robust means in Vietnam. This is thus a test of 'most difficult' cases using a 'least likely' test model. Nevertheless, the findings refute the deterrence argument of 'iron fist' advocates. Robust approaches may physically prevent effective support of insurgents but they do not coercively deter people from being willing to actively support the insurgency.

Roll the dice, rational agent : should extra-curial punishment mitigate an offender's sentence?

It was rugby league State of Origin night 2008 and a group of adults had descended upon a house in Eagleby, Brisbane to have some drinks and to celebrate the game. At 11pm that evening, Shane Thomas Davidson entered the bedroom of the homeowner’s 10-year-old son, TC. Davidson approached the bed and began to massage the boy’s penis under his clothing, which caused TC to wake. Davidson stated, ‘Show me how big your willy is and I’ll show you how big mine is’. TC refused the request and after a small period of time, left the bedroom and told his father what had happened...