Identifying influences of driving behaviour : could the Australian work driving setting be unique?

Work-related driving safety is an emerging concern for Australian and overseas organisations. An in depth investigation was undertaken into a group of fleet drivers’ attitudes regarding what personal and environment factors have the greatest impact upon driving behaviours. A number of new and unique factors not previously identified were found including: vehicle features, vehicle ownership, road conditions, weather, etc. The major findings of the study are discussed in regards to practical solutions to improve fleet safety.

In-vehicle avatars to elicit social response and change driving behaviour

Social and psychological theories have provided a plethora of evidence showing that the physical difficulty to express appropriate social interactions between drivers expresses itself in aggression, selfish driving and anti-social behaviour. Therefore there is a need to improve interactions between drivers and allow clearer collective decision making between them. Personal characteristics and the driving situations play strong roles in driver’s aggression. Our approach is centered around the driving situation as opposed to focusing on personality characteristics. It examines aggression and manipulates contextual variables such as driver’s eye contact exchanges. This paper presents a new unobtrusive in-vehicle system that aims at communicating drivers’ intentions, elicit social responses and increasing mutual awareness. It uses eye gaze as a social cue to affect collective decision making with the view to contribute to safe driving. The authors used a driving simulator to design a case control experiment in which eye gaze movements are conveyed with an avatar. Participants were asked to drive through different types of intersections. An avatar representing the head of the other driver was displayed and driver behaviour was analysed. Significant eye gaze pattern difference where observed when an avatar was displayed. Drivers cautiously refer to the avatar when information is required on the intention of others (e.g. when they do not have the right of way). The majority of participants reported the perception of “being looked at”. The number of glances and time spent gazing at the avatar did not indicate an unsafe distraction by standards of in-vehicle device ergonomic design. Avatars were visually consulted primarily in less demanding driving situations, which underlines their non-distractive nature.

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

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

The role of personality in predicting hooning-related driving behaviour

‘Hooning’ constitutes a set of illegal and high-risk vehicle related activities typically performed by males aged 17-25, a group that is over-represented in road trauma statistics. This study used an online survey of 422 participants to test the efficacy of the Five Factor Model of Personality in predicting ‘loss of traction’ (LOT) hooning behaviour. Drivers who engaged in LOT behaviour scored significantly lower on the factor of Agreeableness than those who did not. Regression analyses indicated that the Five Factor Model of Personality was a significant predictor of LOT behaviour over and above sex and age, although Agreeableness was the only significant personality factor in the model. The findings may be used to better understand those drivers likely to engage in LOT behaviours. Road safety advertising and educational campaigns can target less socially agreeable drivers, and aim to encourage more agreeable attitudes to driving, particularly for younger male drivers.

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.

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.

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.

Identifying an appropriate driving behaviour scale for the occupational driving context : the DBQ vs. the ODBQ

Self reported driving behaviour in the occupational driving context has typically been measured through scales adapted from the general driving population (i.e. the Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ)). However, research suggests that occupational driving is influenced by unique factors operating within the workplace environment, and thus, a behavioural scale should reflect those behaviours prevalent and unique within the driving context. To overcome this limitation, developed the Occupational Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (ODBQ) which utilises a relevant theoretical model to assess the impact of the broader workplace context on driving behaviour. Although the theoretical argument has been established, research is yet to examine whether the ODBQ or the DBQ is a more sensitive measure of the workplace context. As such, this paper identifies selected organisational factors (i.e. safety climate and role overload) as predictors of the DBQ and the ODBQ and compares the relative predictive value in both models. In undertaking this task, 248 occupational drivers were recruited from a community-oriented nursing population. As predicted, hierarchical regression analyses revealed that the organisational factors accounted for a significantly greater proportion of variance in the ODBQ than the DBQ. These findings offer a number of practical and theoretical applications for occupational driving practice and future research.

A comprehensive investigation of the risky driving behaviour of young novice drivers

Young novice drivers - that is, drivers aged 16-25 years who are relatively inexperienced in driving on the road and have a novice (Learner, Provisional) driver's licence - have been overrepresented in car crash, injury and fatality statistics around the world for decades. There are numerous persistent characteristics evident in young novice driver crashes, fatalities and offences, including variables relating to the young driver themselves, broader social influences which include their passengers, the car they drive, and when and how they drive, and their risky driving behaviour in particular. Moreover, there are a range of psychosocial factors influencing the behaviour of young novice drivers, including the social influences of parents and peers, and person-related factors such as age-related factors, attitudes, and sensation seeking. Historically, a range of approaches have been developed to manage the risky driving behaviour of young novice drivers. Traditional measures predominantly relying upon education have had limited success in regulating the risky driving behaviour of the young novice driver. In contrast, interventions such as graduated driver licensing (GDL) which acknowledges young novice drivers' limitations - principally pertaining to their chronological and developmental age, and their driving inexperience - have shown to be effective in ameliorating this pervasive public health problem. In practice, GDL is a risk management tool that is designed to reduce driving at risky times (e.g., at night) or in risky driving conditions (e.g., with passengers), while still enabling novice drivers to obtain experience. In this regard, the GDL program in Queensland, Australia, was considerably enhanced in July 2007, and major additions to the program include mandated Learner practice of 100 hours recorded in a logbook, and passenger limits during night driving in the Provisional phase. Road safety researchers have also continued to consider the influential role played by the young driver's psychosocial characteristics, including psychological traits and states. In addition, whilst the majority of road safety user research is epidemiological in nature, contemporary road safety research is increasingly applying psychological and criminological theories. Importantly, such theories not only can guide young novice driver research, they can also inform the development and evaluation of countermeasures targeting their risky driving behaviour. The research is thus designed to explore the self-reported behaviours - and the personal, psychosocial, and structural influences upon the behaviours - of young novice drivers This thesis incorporates three stages of predominantly quantitative research to undertake a comprehensive investigation of the risky driving behaviour of young novices. Risky driving behaviour increases the likelihood of the young novice driver being involved in a crash which may harm themselves or other road users, and deliberate risky driving such as driving in excess of the posted speed limits is the focus of the program of research. The extant literature examining the nature of the risky behaviour of the young novice driver - and the contributing factors for this behaviour - while comprehensive, has not led to the development of a reliable instrument designed specifically to measure the risky behaviour of the young novice driver. Therefore the development and application of such a tool (the Behaviour of Young Novice Drivers Scale, or BYNDS) was foremost in the program of research. In addition to describing the driving behaviours of the young novice, a central theme of this program of research was identifying, describing, and quantifying personal, behavioural, and environmental influences upon young novice driver risky behaviour. Accordingly the 11 papers developed from the three stages of research which comprise this thesis are framed within Bandura's reciprocal determinism model which explicitly considers the reciprocal relationship between the environment, the person, and their behaviour. Stage One comprised the foundation research and operationalised quantitative and qualitative methodologies to finalise the instrument used in Stages Two and Three. The first part of Stage One involved an online survey which was completed by 761 young novice drivers who attended tertiary education institutions across Queensland. A reliable instrument for measuring the risky driving behaviour of young novices was developed (the BYNDS) and is currently being operationalised in young novice driver research in progress at the Centre for Injury Research and Prevention in Philadelphia, USA. In addition, regression analyses revealed that psychological distress influenced risky driving behaviour, and the differential influence of depression, anxiety, sensitivity to punishments and rewards, and sensation seeking propensity were explored. Path model analyses revealed that punishment sensitivity was mediated by anxiety and depression; and the influence of depression, anxiety, reward sensitivity and sensation seeking propensity were moderated by the gender of the driver. Specifically, for males, sensation seeking propensity, depression, and reward sensitivity were predictive of self-reported risky driving, whilst for females anxiety was also influential. In the second part of Stage One, 21 young novice drivers participated in individual and small group interviews. The normative influences of parents, peers, and the Police were explicated. Content analysis supported four themes of influence through punishments, rewards, and the behaviours and attitudes of parents and friends. The Police were also influential upon the risky driving behaviour of young novices. The findings of both parts of Stage One informed the research of Stage Two. Stage Two was a comprehensive investigation of the pre-Licence and Learner experiences, attitudes, and behaviours, of young novice drivers. In this stage, 1170 young novice drivers from across Queensland completed an online or paper survey exploring their experiences, behaviours and attitudes as a pre- and Learner driver. The majority of novices did not drive before they were licensed (pre-Licence driving) or as an unsupervised Learner, submitted accurate logbooks, intended to follow the road rules as a Provisional driver, and reported practicing predominantly at the end of the Learner period. The experience of Learners in the enhanced-GDL program were also examined and compared to those of Learner drivers who progressed through the former-GDL program (data collected previously by Bates, Watson, & King, 2009a). Importantly, current-GDL Learners reported significantly more driving practice and a longer Learner period, less difficulty obtaining practice, and less offence detection and crash involvement than Learners in the former-GDL program. The findings of Stage Two informed the research of Stage Three. Stage Three was a comprehensive exploration of the driving experiences, attitudes and behaviours of young novice drivers during their first six months of Provisional 1 licensure. In this stage, 390 of the 1170 young novice drivers from Stage Two completed another survey, and data collected during Stages Two and Three allowed a longitudinal investigation of self-reported risky driving behaviours, such as GDL-specific and general road rule compliance; risky behaviour such as pre-Licence driving, crash involvement and offence detection; and vehicle ownership, paying attention to Police presence, and punishment avoidance. Whilst the majority of Learner and Provisional drivers reported compliance with GDL-specific and general road rules, 33% of Learners and 50% of Provisional drivers reported speeding by 10-20 km/hr at least occasionally. Twelve percent of Learner drivers reported pre-Licence driving, and these drivers were significantly more risky as Learner and Provisional drivers. Ten percent of males and females reported being involved in a crash, and 10% of females and 18% of males had been detected for an offence, within the first six months of independent driving. Additionally, 75% of young novice drivers reported owning their own car within six months of gaining their Provisional driver's licence. Vehicle owners reported significantly shorter Learner periods and more risky driving exposure as a Provisional driver. Paying attention to Police presence on the roads appeared normative for young novice drivers: 91% of Learners and 72% of Provisional drivers reported paying attention. Provisional drivers also reported they actively avoided the Police: 25% of males and 13% of females; 23% of rural drivers and 15% of urban drivers. Stage Three also allowed the refinement of the risky behaviour measurement tool (BYNDS) created in Stage One; the original reliable 44-item instrument was refined to a similarly reliable 36-item instrument. A longitudinal exploration of the influence of anxiety, depression, sensation seeking propensity and reward sensitivity upon the risky behaviour of the Provisional driver was also undertaken using data collected in Stages Two and Three. Consistent with the research of Stage One, structural equation modeling revealed anxiety, reward sensitivity and sensation seeking propensity predicted self-reported risky driving behaviour. Again, gender was a moderator, with only reward sensitivity predicting risky driving for males. A measurement model of Akers' social learning theory (SLT) was developed containing six subscales operationalising the four constructs of differential association, imitation, personal attitudes, and differential reinforcement, and the influence of parents and peers was captured within the items in a number of these constructs. Analyses exploring the nature and extent of the psychosocial influences of personal characteristics (step 1), Akers' SLT (step 2), and elements of the prototype/willingness model (PWM) (step 3) upon self-reported speeding by the Provisional driver in a hierarchical multiple regression model found the following significant predictors: gender (male), car ownership (own car), reward sensitivity (greater sensitivity), depression (greater depression), personal attitudes (more risky attitudes), and speeding (more speeding) as a Learner. The research findings have considerable implications for road safety researchers, policy-makers, mental health professionals and medical practitioners alike. A broad range of issues need to be considered when developing, implementing and evaluating interventions for both the intentional and unintentional risky driving behaviours of interest. While a variety of interventions have been historically utilised, including education, enforcement, rehabilitation and incentives, caution is warranted. A multi-faceted approach to improving novice road safety is more likely to be effective, and new and existing countermeasures should capitalise on the potential of parents, peers and Police to be a positive influence upon the risky behaviour of young novice drivers. However, the efficacy of some interventions remains undetermined at this time. Notwithstanding this caveat, countermeasures such as augmenting and strengthening Queensland's GDL program and targeting parents and adolescents particularly warrant further attention. The findings of the research program suggest that Queensland's current-GDL can be strengthened by increasing compliance of young novice drivers with existing conditions and restrictions. The rates of speeding reported by the young Learner driver are particularly alarming for a number of reasons. The Learner is inexperienced in driving, and travelling in excess of speed limits places them at greater risk as they are also inexperienced in detecting and responding appropriately to driving hazards. In addition, the Learner period should provide the foundation for a safe lifetime driving career, enabling the development and reinforcement of non-risky driving habits. Learners who sped reported speeding by greater margins, and at greater frequencies, when they were able to drive independently. Other strategies could also be considered to enhance Queensland's GDL program, addressing both the pre-Licence adolescent and their parents. Options that warrant further investigation to determine their likely effectiveness include screening and treatment of novice drivers by mental health professionals and/or medical practitioners; and general social skills training. Considering the self-reported pre-licence driving of the young novice driver, targeted education of parents may need to occur before their child obtains a Learner licence. It is noteworthy that those participants who reported risky driving during the Learner phase also were more likely to report risky driving behaviour during the Provisional phase; therefore it appears vital that the development of safe driving habits is encouraged from the beginning of the novice period. General education of parents and young novice drivers should inform them of the considerably-increased likelihood of risky driving behaviour, crashes and offences associated with having unlimited access to a vehicle in the early stages of intermediate licensure. Importantly, parents frequently purchase the car that is used by the Provisional driver, who typically lives at home with their parents, and therefore parents are ideally positioned to monitor the journeys of their young novice driver during this early stage of independent driving. Parents are pivotal in the development of their driving child: they are models who are imitated and are sources of attitudes, expectancies, rewards and punishments; and they provide the most driving instruction for the Learner. High rates of self-reported speeding by Learners suggests that GDL programs specifically consider the nature of supervision during the Learner period, encouraging supervisors to be vigilant to compliance with general and GDL-specific road rules, and especially driving in excess of speed limit. Attitudes towards driving are formed before the adolescent reaches the age when they can be legally licensed. Young novice drivers with risky personal attitudes towards driving reported more risky driving behaviour, suggesting that countermeasures should target such attitudes and that such interventions might be implemented before the adolescent is licensed. The risky behaviours and attitudes of friends were also found to be influential, and given that young novice drivers tend to carry their friends as their passengers, a group intervention such as provided in a school class context may prove more effective. Social skills interventions that encourage the novice to resist the negative influences of their friends and their peer passengers, and to not imitate the risky driving behaviour of their friends, may also be effective. The punishments and rewards anticipated from and administered by friends were also found to influence the self-reported risky behaviour of the young novice driver; therefore young persons could be encouraged to sanction the risky, and to reward the non-risky, driving of their novice friends. Adolescent health programs and related initiatives need to more specifically consider the risks associated with driving. Young novice drivers are also adolescents, a developmental period associated with depression and anxiety. Depression, anxiety, and sensation seeking propensity were found to be predictive of risky driving; therefore interventions targeting psychological distress, whilst discouraging the expression of sensation seeking propensity whilst driving, warrant development and trialing. In addition, given that reward sensitivity was also predictive, a scheme which rewards novice drivers for safe driving behaviour - rather than rewarding the novice through emotional and instrumental rewards for risky driving behaviour - requires further investigation. The Police were also influential in the risky driving behaviour of young novices. Young novice drivers who had been detected for an offence, and then avoided punishment, reacted differentially, with some drivers appearing to become less risky after the encounter, whilst for others their risky behaviour appeared to be reinforced and therefore was more likely to be performed again. Such drivers saw t

"If they say go faster or something I'll probably go faster" - peer influence upon the risky driving behaviour of young novice drivers

Purpose Young novice drivers are at considerable risk of injury on the road, and their behaviour appears vulnerable to the social influence of their friends. Research was undertaken to identify the nature and mechanisms of peer influence upon novice driver (16-25 years) behaviour to inform the design of more effective young driver countermeasures. Methods. Peer influence was explored in small group interviews (n = 21) and three surveys (n1 = 761, n2 = 1170, n3 = 390) as part of a larger Queensland-wide study. Surveys two and three were part of a six-month longitudinal study. Results Peer influence was reported from the pre-Licence to the Provisional (intermediate) periods. Young novice drivers who experienced or expected social punishments including ‘being told off’ for risky driving reported less riskiness. Conversely young novice drivers who experienced or expected social rewards such as being ‘cheered on’ by their friends – who were also more risky drivers – reported more risky driving including crashes and offences. Conclusions Peers appear influential in the risky behaviour of young novice drivers, and influence occurs through social mechanisms of reinforcement and sanction. Interventions enhancing positive influence and curtailing negative influence may improve road safety outcomes not only for young novice drivers, but for all persons who share the road with them. Among the interventions warranting further development and evaluation are programs to encourage the modelling of safe driving behaviour and attitudes by young drivers; and minimisation of social reinforcement and promotion of social sanctions for risky driving behaviour in particular.

Punishment Avoidance and Intentional Risky Driving Behaviour : What are the Implications for ‘Getting Away with it’?

Every motorised jurisdiction mandates legal driving behaviour which facilitates driver mobility and road user safety through explicit road rules that are enforced by regulatory authorities such as the Police. In road safety, traffic law enforcement has been very successfully applied to modify road user behaviour, and increasingly technology is fundamental in detecting illegal road user behaviour. Furthermore, there is also sound evidence that highly visible and/or intensive enforcement programs achieve long-term deterrent effects. To illustrate, in Australia random breath testing has considerably reduced the incidence and prevalence of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol. There is, however, evidence that many road rules continue to be broken, including speeding and using a mobile phone whilst driving, and there are many instances where drivers are not detected or sufficiently sanctioned for these transgressions. Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that experiences of punishment avoidance – that is, successful attempts at avoiding punishment such as drivers talking themselves out of a ticket, or changing driving routes to evade detection –are associated with and predictive of the extent of illegal driving behaviour and future illegal driving intentions. Therefore there is a need to better understand the phenomenon of punishment avoidance to enhance our traffic law enforcement procedures and therefore safety of all road users. This chapter begins with a review of the young driver road safety problem, followed by an examination of contemporary deterrence theory to enhance our understanding of both the experiences and implications of punishment avoidance in the road environment. It is noteworthy that in situations where detection and punishment remain relatively rare, such as on extensive road networks, the research evidence suggests that experiences of punishment avoidance may have a stronger influence upon risky driving behaviour than experiences of punishment. Finally, data from a case study examining the risky behaviour of young drivers will be presented, and the implications for ‘getting away with it’ will be discussed.

Exploring differences in driving behaviour across age and years of education of taxi drivers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Despite statistics indicating that the African region has the highest road traffic fatality rate globally, there is limited scientific literature identifying the determinants of driving behaviour. In this study, we explore differences in self-reported driving behaviour across age groups and years of education in a population of 213 drivers from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. We hypothesize that younger, less educated drivers will report engaging in more unsafe driving behaviours compared to older, more educated drivers. Contrary to expectations, we found the opposite effect, whereby older, more educated drivers reported engaging in more unsafe driving behaviours than younger, less educated drivers. We explain these findings by describing key characteristics of the sample and cultural ideologies of the region. The findings of this study offer some practical guidance for intervention to address the burden of road traffic injury and death in the African region.

The applicability of the Precaution Adoption Process Model for understanding self-regulatory driving behaviour among older drivers

1. Introduction The success of self-regulation, in terms of enhancing older drivers’ safety and maintaining their mobility, depends largely upon older drivers’ awareness of the declines in their driving abilities. Therefore, interventions targeted at increasing older drivers’ safety should aim to enhance their awareness of their physical, sensory and cognitive limitations. Moreover, previous research suggests that driving behaviour change may occur through stages and that interventions and feedback may be perceived differently at each stage. 2. Study aims To further understand the process of driving self-regulation among older adults by exploring their perceptions and experiences of self-regulation, using the PAPM as a framework. To investigate the possible impact of feedback on their driving on their decision making process. 3. Methodology Research tool: Qualitative focus groups (n=5 sessions) Recruitment: Posters, media, newspaper advertisement and emails Inclusion criteria: Aged 70 or more, English-speaking, current drivers Participants: Convenience sample of 27 men and women aged 74 to 90 in the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane city, Queensland, Australia. 4. Analysis Thematic analysis was conducted following the process outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) to identify, analyse and report themes within the data. Four main themes were identified.

The psychosocial purpose of driving and its relationship with the risky driving behaviour of young novice drivers

Background The overrepresentation of young drivers in road crashes, injuries and fatalities around the world has resulted in a breadth of injury prevention efforts including education, enforcement, engineering, and exposure control. Despite multifaceted intervention, the young driver problem remains a challenge for injury prevention researchers, practitioners and policy-makers. The intractable nature of young driver crash risks suggests that a deeper understanding of their car use – that is, the purpose of their driving – is required to inform the design of more effective young driver countermeasures. Aims This research examined the driving purpose reported by young drivers, including the relationship with self-reported risky driving behaviours including offences. Methods Young drivers with a Learner or Provisional licence participated in three online surveys (N1 = 656, 17–20 years; N2 = 1051, 17–20 years; N3 = 351, 17–21 years) as part of a larger state-wide project in Queensland, Australia. Results A driving purpose scale was developed (the PsychoSocial Purpose Driving Scale, PSPDS), revealing that young drivers drove for psychosocial reasons such as for a sense of freedom and to feel independent. Drivers who reported the greatest psychosocial purpose for driving were more likely to be male and to report more risky driving behaviours such as speeding. Drivers who deliberately avoided on-road police presence and reported a prior driving-related offence had significantly greater PSPDS scores, and higher reporting of psychosocial driving purposes was found over time as drivers transitioned from the supervised Learner licence phase to the independent Provisional (intermediate) licence phase. Discussion and conclusions The psychosocial needs met by driving suggest that effective intervention to prevent young driver injury requires further consideration of their driving purpose. Enforcement, education, and engineering efforts which consider the psychosocial purpose of the driving are likely to be more efficacious than those which presently do not. Road safety countermeasures could reduce the young driver’s exposure to risk through such mechanisms as encouraging the use of public transport.