Developing a new index for comparing road safety maturity: Case study of the ASEAN community

As part of the development of the ASEAN Regional Road Safety Strategy, a new index for measuring road safety maturity (RSM) was constructed from numerical weightings given to measurable factors presented for each of the pillars that guide national road safety plans and activities in WHO Global Road Safety Report 2013: road safety management, safer road and mobility, safer vehicles, safer road users and post-crash response. The index is based on both a content analysis approach and a binary methodology (report/no report) including measures which have been considered pertinent and not redundant. For instance, the use of random breath testing and/or police checkpoints in the national drink driving law are combined in the enforcement index. The value of the index per pillar ranges from 0 to 100%, taking into account whether there is total, partial or non-implementation of certain actions. In addition, when possible, the self-rated level of enforcement is included. The overall ratings for the I 0 ASEAN countries and the scores for each of the pillars are presented in the paper. The extent to which the RSM index is a valid indicator of road safety performance is also discussed.

Random Breath Testing Operation and Effectiveness in 1987

• In December 1986 funds were approved to double the intensity of random breath testing (RBT) and provide publicity support for police efforts. These changes were considered necessary to make RBT effective. • RBT methods were changed in the metropolitan area to enable block testing (pulling over a block of traffic rather than one or two cars), deployment of police to cut off escape routes, and testing by traffic patrols in all police subdivisions. Additional operators were trained for country RBT. • A publicity campaign was developed, aimed mainly at male drivers aged 18-50. The campaign consisted of the “cardsharp” television commercials, radio commercials, newspaper articles, posters and pamphlets. • Increased testing and the publicity campaigns were launched on 10 April 1987. • Police tests increased by 92.5% in May – December 1987, compared with the same period in the previous four years. • The detection rate for drinking drivers picked up by police who were cutting off escape routes was comparatively high, indicating that drivers were attempting to avoid RBT, and that this police method was effective at detecting these drivers. • A telephone survey indicated that drivers were aware of the messages of the publicity campaign. • The telephone survey also indicated that the target group had been exposed to high levels of RBT, as planned, and that fear of apprehension was the major factor deterring them from drink driving. • A roadside survey of driver blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) by the University of Adelaide’s Road Accident Research Unit (RARU) showed that, between 10p.m. and 3a.m., the proportion of drivers in Adelaide with a BAC greater than or equal to 0/08 decreased by 42%. • Drivers under 21 were identified as a possible problem area. • Fatalities in the twelve month period commencing May 1987 decreased by 18% in comparison with the previous twelve month period, and by 13% in comparison with the average of the previous two twelve month periods (commencing May 1985 and May 1986). There are indications that this trend is continuing. • It is concluded that the increase in RBT, plus publicity, was successful in achieving its aims of reductions in drink driving and accidents.

Random Breath Testing Operation and Effectiveness in 1985

Random breath testing (RBT) was introduced in South Australia in 1981 with the intention of reducing the incidence of accidents involving alcohol. In April 1985, a Select Committee of the Upper House which had been established to “review the operation of random breath testing in this State and any other associated matters and report accordingly” presented its report. After consideration of this report, the Government introduced extensive amendments to those sections of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) and Road Traffic Act (RTA) which deal with RBT and drink driving penalties. The amended section 47da of the RTA requires that: “(5) The Minister shall cause a report to be prepared within three months after the end of each calendar year on the operation and effectiveness of this section and related sections during that calendar year. (6) The Minister shall, within 12 sitting days after receipt of a report under subsection (5), cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament.” This is the first such report. Whilst it deals with RBT over a full year, the changed procedures and improved flexibility allowed by the revision to the RTA were only introduced late in 1985 and then only to the extent that the existing resources would allow.

Inconsistency of surrogate measures of alcohol-related accidents in South Australia

Three major changes in drink driving enforcement have occurred in South Australia since 1981. The effect of these changes on a number of surrogate measures of alcohol involvement in accidents were investigated. The surrogates included alcohol involvement of driver fatalities, and combinations of casualty, serious casualty, single vehicle and nighttime accidents. Data from previous studies were also cited. It was found that relationships between surrogate measures were inconsistent, and incompatible with assumptions about drink driving levels and related accidents. It was concluded that until these effects are understood the use of surrogate measures should be treated with caution.

THE DRINKING DRIVER, A guide to the five part series ONE FOR THE ROAD

THE DRINKING DRIVER is a guide for listeners to the Adult Education radio series ONE FOR THE ROAD, a five-part series on drink-driving and Australia’s road toll. ONE FOR THE ROAD was produced by Lee Parker and Julie Levi, with assistance from the Federal Office of Road Safety in Canberra. The five programs, presented by Lee Parker were first broadcast on ABC Radio National in January 1989, and repeated on Radio National and Regional Stations across Australia in April/May 1989. THE DRINKING DRIVER was written by Mark King, Senior Project Officer with the Road Safety Division of the South Australian Department of Transport.

The application of social marketing in reducing road traffic accidents amoung young male drivers: an investigation using physical fear threat appeals

There were 338 road fatalities on Irish roads in 2007. Research in 2007 by the Road Safety Authority in Ireland states that young male drivers (17 – 25 years) are seven times more likely to be killed on Irish roads than other road users. The car driver fatality rate was found to be approximately 10 times higher for young male drivers than for female drivers in 2000. Young male drivers in particular demonstrate a high proclivity for risky driving behaviours. These risky behaviours include drink driving, speeding, rug-driving and engaging in aggressive driving. Speed is the single largest contributing factor to road deaths in Ireland. Approximately 40% of fatal accidents are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed. This study focuses on how dangerous driving behaviours may be addressed through social marketing. This study analyses the appropriate level of fear that needs to be induced in order to change young male driving behaviour.

Why people drink and drive: the bases of drinking-and-driving decisions. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Too young to drink but old enough to drive under the influence : a study of underage offenders as seen in substance abuse treatment in Texas

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a major road safety problem. Historically, alcohol has been assumed to play a larger role in crashes and DUI education programs have reflected this assumption, although recent evidence suggests that younger drivers are becoming more likely to drive drugged than to drive drunk. This is a study of 7096 Texas clients under age 21 who were admitted to state-funded treatment programs between 1997 and 2007 with a past-year DUI arrest, DUI probation, or DUI referral. Data were obtained from the State’s administrative dataset. Multivariate logistic regressions models were used to understand the differences between those minors entering treatment as a DUI as compared to a non-DUI as well as the risks for completing treatment and for being abstinent in the month prior to follow-up. A major finding was that over time, the primary problem for underage DUI drivers changed from alcohol to marijuana. Being abstinent in the month prior to discharge, having a primary problem with alcohol rather than another drug, and having more family involved were the strongest predictors of treatment completion. Living in a household where the client was exposed to alcohol abuse or drug use, having been in residential treatment, and having more drug and alcohol and family problems were the strongest predictors of not being abstinent at follow-up. As a result, there is a need to direct more attention towards meeting the needs of the young DUI population through programs that address drug as well as alcohol consumption problems.

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.

Do people gamble with their lives : The relationship between risky driving behaviour and other risky behaviours

General risky behaviour is explored for correlation with risky driving behaviour in light of two theories, self-control and cross-situational consistency. Identification of general risky behaviours associated with risky driving behaviour, and the theory that best predicts the behaviours, will enable better targeting of intervention and education strategies to reduce driving related fatalities and injuries. A correlational study using participants (N=152) drawn from first year university undergraduates and the public surveyed their lifestyle and behaviours. Relationships were found between risky driving behaviours and other risky behaviours such as alcohol consumption, cannabis use and performing unlawful activities. No significant differences were found between genders, with the exception that males were more likely to believe that they were at risk of injury from their employment, χ2 (1, N = 152) = 4.49, p = .03, were more likely to have performed an unlawful offence, χ2 (1, N = 152) = 11.77, p = .001 and were more likely to drink drive, t (55.41) = -3.87, p < .001, mean difference = -0.63, CI 95% (-0.9, -0.37). People engaged in risky driving behaviours were more likely to engage in other risky behaviours. The theories that were explored were unable to accurately predict an association between general risky behaviour and driving without a license or when disqualified. Cross-situational consistency explained 20% (R2adj = .16) of the variance in which people engaged in risky driving with low self-control theory explaining an additional 0.3% variance (R2change = .003), F (8,143) = 6.92, p < .001. Driving while under the influence of alcohol could be predicted by risky behaviours in lifestyle, health, smoking, cannabis use and alcohol consumption, F (8,143) = 6.92, p < .001. The addition of self-control was not significant.

"I drove after drinking alcohol" and other risky driving behaviours reported by young novice drivers

Background Volitional risky driving behaviours including drink- and drug-driving and speeding contribute to the overrepresentation of young novice drivers in road crash fatalities, and crash risk is greatest during the first year of independent driving in particular. Aims To compare: 1) the self-reported compliance of drivers with road rules relating to substance-impaired driving and other risky driving behaviours including speeding and driving tired, one year after progression from a Learner to a Provisional (intermediate) licence; and 2) the interrelationships between substance-impaired driving and other risky driving behaviours (crashes, offences, and Police avoidance). Methods 1268 drivers (373 males) aged 17-26 years were surveyed regarding their sociodemographics (age, gender) and self-reported driving behaviours including crashes, offences, Police-avoidance, and driving intentions. Results A relatively small proportion of participants reported driving after taking drugs (5.9% males, 1.3% females) and drinking alcohol (19.3% males, 11.6% females). In comparison, a considerable proportion of participants reported at least occasionally exceeding speed limits (85.7% novices) and driving when tired (82.7% novices). Substance-impaired driving was associated with avoiding Police, speeding, risky driving intentions, and self reported crashes and offences. Forty-four percent of illicit-drug drivers also reported alcohol-impaired driving. Discussion and conclusions The low self-reported prevalence of substance-impaired driving suggests official enforcement measures play a role in promoting compliance, in addition to social influences such as the broader community and the young novice drivers’ social networks including friends and family. Conversely, the prevalence of speeding appears to reflect the pervasive cultural acceptance of this behaviour. Given the interrelationships between the risky driving behaviours, a deeper understanding of influential factors is required to inform targeted and general countermeasure implementation and evaluation during this critical driving period.

Evaluation of the 2006 Labor Day You Drink & Drive, You Lose, Campaign : July 24 - September 17, 2006.

"February 2007"

Implementation of a driving diary intervention to reduce aberrant driving behaviours

Crash data involving taxis indicates that such drivers are over represented in crashes and are one to two times more likely to be involved in a fatality crash. This study reports on the pre intervention survey to provide a baseline measure of the self-reported attitudes and corresponding driving behaviours of a sample of taxi drivers. Results indicate that some taxi drivers willingly admit to engaging in unsafe driving practices. In addition, preliminary results of a post intervention survey revealed that taxi drivers’ safety perceptions, attitude and behaviours improved after completing a Driving Diary intervention.