Repeat speeding offenders : results from research in Queensland, Australia

- Speeding and crash involvement in Australia - Speeding recidivist research in Queensland - Challenges from an Australian perspective - Auditor-General reviews of speed camera programs - Implications for future speed management

Repeat speeding offenders : time to stop thinking of them as just ‘unlucky normal’ drivers

- Speeding and crash involvement in Australia - Speeding recidivist research in Queensland - Challenges from an Australian perspective - Defining speeding - Community attitudes to speeding - Auditor-General reviews of speed camera programs - Implications for future speed management

Repeat speeding offenders from an Australian perspective

Overview -Speeding and crash involvement in Australia -Speeding recidivist research in Queensland -Implications for future speed management

Characteristics and predictors of high-range speeding offenders

This paper examines an aspect of the data taken from a larger study evaluating the effect of speeding penalty changes on speeding recidivism in Queensland. Traffic offence data from May 1996 to August 2007 were provided to the research team for two cohorts of offenders: individuals who committed a speeding offence in May 2001; and individuals who committed a speeding offence in May 2003. Data included details of the offenders’ index offence, previous and subsequent traffic offences (speeding and other) and their demographic characteristics. Using this data the aim of this component of the research was to use demographic data and the previous traffic offences of these individuals to explore the characteristics and predictors of high-range speeding offenders. High-range offenders were identified as those individuals who committed two or more speeding offences with a recorded speed of 30 km/hr or more above the speed limit. For the purposes of comparison, low-range offenders (committed one speeding offence in the time-frame and that offence was less than 15 km/hr over the speed limit) and mid-range offenders (all other offenders) were identified. Using Chi-square and logistic regression analyses, characteristics and predictors of high-range speeding offenders were identified. The implications and limitations of this study are also discussed.

Profiling high-range speeding offenders : investigating criminal history, personal characteristics, traffic offences, and crash history

This paper reports profiling information for speeding offenders and is part of a larger project that assessed the deterrent effects of increased speeding penalties in Queensland, Australia, using a total of 84,456 speeding offences. The speeding offenders were classified into three groups based on the extent and severity of an index offence: once-only low-rang offenders; repeat high-range offenders; and other offenders. The three groups were then compared in terms of personal characteristics, traffic offences, crash history and criminal history. Results revealed a number of significant differences between repeat high-range offenders and those in the other two offender groups. Repeat high-range speeding offenders were more likely to be male, younger, hold a provisional and a motorcycle licence, to have committed a range of previous traffic offences, to have a significantly greater likelihood of crash involvement, and to have been involved in multiple-vehicle crashes than drivers in the other two offender types. Additionally, when a subset of offenders’ criminal histories were examined, results revealed that repeat high-range speeding offenders were also more likely to have committed a previous criminal offence compared to once only low-range and other offenders and that 55.2% of the repeat high-range offenders had a criminal history. They were also significantly more likely to have committed drug offences and offences against order than the once only low-range speeding offenders, and significantly more likely to have committed regulation offences than those in the other offenders group. Overall, the results indicate that speeding offenders are not an homogeneous group and that, therefore, more tailored and innovative sanctions should be considered and evaluated for high-range recidivist speeders because they are a high-risk road user group.

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.

Assessing specific deterrence effects of increased speeding penalties using four measures of recidivism

Traffic law enforcement sanctions can impact on road user behaviour through general and specific deterrence mechanisms. The manner in which specific deterrence can influence recidivist behaviour can be conceptualised in different ways. While any reduction in speeding will have road safety benefits, the ways in which a ‘reduction’ is determined deserves greater methodological attention and has implications for countermeasure evaluation more generally. The primary aim of this research was to assess the specific deterrent impact of penalty increases for speeding offences in Queensland, Australia, in 2003 on two cohorts of drivers detected for speeding prior to and after the penalty changes were investigated. Since the literature is relatively silent on how to assess recidivism in the speeding context, the secondary research aim was to contribute to the literature regarding ways to conceptualise and measure specific deterrence in the speeding context. We propose a novel way of operationalising four measures which reflect different ways in which a specific deterrence effect could be conceptualised: (1) the proportion of offenders who re-offended in the follow up period; (2) the overall frequency of re-offending in the follow up period; (3) the length of delay to re-offence among those who re-offended; and (4) the average number of re-offences during the follow up period among those who re-offended. Consistent with expectations, results suggested an absolute deterrent effect of penalty changes, as evidenced by significant reductions in the proportion of drivers who re-offended and the overall frequency of re-offending, although effect sizes were small. Contrary to expectations, however, there was no evidence of a marginal specific deterrent effect among those who re-offended, with a significant reduction in the length of time to re-offence and no significant change in the average number of offences committed. Additional exploratory analyses investigating potential influences of the severity of the index offence, offence history, and method of detection revealed mixed results. Access to additional data from various sources suggested that the main findings were not influenced by changes in speed enforcement activity, public awareness of penalty changes, or driving exposure during the study period. Study limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed with a view to promoting more extensive evaluations of penalty changes and better understanding of how such changes may impact on motorists’ perceptions of enforcement and sanctions, as well as on recidivist behaviour.

Response efficacy : the key to minimizing rejection and maximizing acceptance of emotion-based anti-speeding messages

This study sought to improve understanding of the persuasive process of emotion-based appeals not only in relation to negative, fear-based appeals but also for appeals based upon positive emotions. In particular, the study investigated whether response efficacy, as a cognitive construct, mediated outcome measures of message effectiveness in terms of both acceptance and rejection of negative and positive emotion-based messages. Licensed drivers (N = 406) participated via the completion of an on-line survey. Within the survey, participants received either a negative (fear-based) appeal or one of the two possible positive appeals (pride or humor-based). Overall, the study's findings confirmed the importance of emotional and cognitive components of persuasive health messages and identified response efficacy as a key cognitive construct influencing the effectiveness of not only fear-based messages but also positive emotion-based messages. Interestingly, however, the results suggested that response efficacy's influence on message effectiveness may differ for positive and negative emotion-based appeals such that significant indirect (and mediational) effects were found with both acceptance and rejection of the positive appeals yet only with rejection of the fear-based appeal. As such, the study's findings provide an important extension to extant literature and may inform future advertising message design.

A participative education program to reduce speeding in a group of work-related drivers

A number of intervention approaches have been developed to improve work-related driving safety. However, past interventions have been limited in that they have been data-driven, and have not been developed within a theoretical framework. The aim of this study is to present a theory-driven intervention. Based on the methodology developed by Ludwig and Geller (1991), this study evaluates the effectiveness of a participative education intervention on a group of work-related drivers (n = 28; experimental group n = 19, control n = 9). The results support the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing speeding over a six month period, while a non significant increase was found in the control group. The results of this study have important implications for organisations developing theory-driven interventions designed to improve work-related driving behaviour.

How do other people influence your driving speed? Exploring the 'who' and the 'how' of social influences on speeding from a qualitative perspective

Using only legal sanctions to manage the speed at which people drive ignores the potential benefits of harnessing social factors such as the influence of others. Social influences on driver speeds were explored in this qualitative examination of 67 Australian drivers. Focus group interviews with 8 driver types (young, mid-age and older males and females, and self-identified Excessive and Rare speeders) were guided by Akers’ social learning theory (Akers, 1998). Findings revealed two types of influential others: people known to the driver (passengers and parents), and unknown other drivers. Passengers were generally described as having a slowing influence on drivers: responsibility for the safety of people in the car and consideration for passenger comfort were key themes. In contrast, all but the Rare speeders reported increasing their speed when driving alone. Parental role modelling was also described. In relation to other drivers, key themes included speeding to keep up with traffic flow and perceived pressure to drive faster. This ‘pressure’ from others to ‘speed up’ was expressed in all groups and reported strategies for managing this varied. Encouragingly, examples of actual or anticipated social rewards for speeding were less common than examples of social punishments. Three main themes relating to social punishments were embarrassment, breaching the trust of others, and presenting an image of a responsible driver. Impression management and self-presentation are discussed in light of these findings. Overall, our findings indicate scope to exploit the use of social sanctions for speeding and social praise for speed limit compliance to enhance speed management strategies.

Speeding in Australia and China : a comparison of the influence of legal sanctions and enforcement practices on car drivers

Despite increasingly sophisticated speed management strategies, speeding remains a significant contributing factor in 25% of Australia’s fatal crashes. Excessive speed is also a recognised contributor to road trauma in rapidly motorising countries such as China, where increases in vehicle ownership and new drivers, and a high proportion of vulnerable road users all contribute to a high road trauma rate. Speed choice is a voluntary behaviour. Therefore, driver perceptions are important to our understanding of the nature of speeding. This paper reports preliminary qualitative (focus groups) and quantitative (survey) investigations of the perceptions of drivers in Queensland and Beijing. Drivers’ definitions of speeding as well as their perceptions of the influence of legal factors on their reported speeds were explored. Survey participants were recruited from petrol stations (Queensland, n=833) and car washes (Beijing, n=299). Similarities were evident in justifications for exceeding speed limits across samples. Excessive speeds were not deemed as ‘speeding’ when drivers considered that they were safe and under their control, or when speed limits were seen as unreasonably low. This appears linked to perceptions of enforcement tolerances in some instances with higher perceived enforcement thresholds noted in China. Encouragingly, drivers in both countries reported a high perceived risk of apprehension if speeding. However, a substantial proportion of both samples also indicated perceptions of low certainty of receiving penalties when apprehended. Chinese drivers considered sanctions less severe than did Australian drivers. In addition, strategies to avoid detection and penalties were evident in both samples, with Chinese drivers reporting a broader range of avoidant techniques. Implications of the findings for future directions in speed management in both countries are discussed.

The impact of police speed enforcement practices on self-reported speeding: An exploration of the effects of visibility and mobility

Research has highlighted the relationship between vehicle speed and increased crash risk and severity. Evidence suggests that police speed enforcement, in particular speed camera operations, can be an effective tool for reducing traffic crashes. A quantitative survey of Queensland drivers (n = 852) was conducted to investigate the impact of police speed enforcement methods on self-reported speeding behaviour. Results indicate that visible enforcement was associated with significantly greater self-reported compliance than covert operations irrespective of the mobility of the approach, and the effects on behaviour were longer lasting. The mobility of operations appeared to be moderated the visibility of the approach. Specifically, increased mobility was associated with increase reported compliant behaviour, but only for covert operations, and increased longevity of reported compliant behaviour, but only for overt operations. The perceived effectiveness of various speed enforcement approaches are also analysed across a range of driving scenarios. Results are discussed in light of the small effect sizes. Recommendations for policy and future research are presented.

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.

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