Perceptual deterrence versus current behaviours : a study into factors influencing drug driving in Queensland

A range of interventions are being implemented in Australia to apprehend and deter drug driving behaviour, in particular the recent implementation of random roadside drug testing procedures in Queensland. Given this countermeasure has a strong deterrence foundation, it is of interest to determine whether deterrence-based perceptual factors are influencing this offending behaviour or whether self-reported drug driving is heavily dependent upon illicit substance consumption levels and past offending behaviour. This study involves a sample of Queensland motorists (N = 898) who completed a self-report questionnaire that collected a range of information, including drug driving and drug consumption practices, conviction history, and perceptual deterrence factors. The aim was to examine what factors influence current drug driving behaviours. Analysis of the collected data revealed that approximately 20% of participants reported drug driving at least once in the last six months. Overall, there was considerable variability in the respondents' perceptions regarding the certainty, severity and swiftness of legal sanctions, although the largest proportion of the sample did not consider such sanctions to be certain, severe or swift. In regard to predicting those who intended to drug drive again in the future, a combination of perceptual and behavioural-based factors were associated with such intentions. However, a closer examination revealed that behaviours, rather than perceptions, proved to have a greater level of influence on the current sample's future intentions to offend. This paper further outlines the major findings of the study and highlights that multi-modal interventions are most likely required to reduce the prevalence of drug driving on public roads.

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.

Screening for drugs in oral fluid : illicit drug use and drug driving in a sample of urban and regional Queensland motorists

Police services in a number of Australian states and overseas jurisdictions have begun to implement or consider random road-side drug testing of drivers. This paper outlines research conducted to provide an estimate of the extent of drug driving in a sample of Queensland drivers in regional, rural and metropolitan areas. Oral fluid samples were collected from 2657 Queensland motorists and screened for illicit substances including cannabis (delta 9 tetrahydrocannibinol [THC]), amphetamines, ecstasy, and cocaine. Overall, 3.8% of the sample (n = 101) screened positive for at least one illicit substance, although multiple drugs were identified in a sample of 23 respondents. The most common drugs detected in oral fluid were ecstasy (n = 53), and cannabis (n = 46) followed by amphetamines (n = 23). A key finding was that cannabis was confirmed as the most common self-reported drug combined with driving and that individuals who tested positive to any drug through oral fluid analysis were also more likely to report the highest frequency of drug driving. Furthermore, a comparison between drug vs. drink driving detection rates for one region of the study, revealed a higher detection rate for drug driving (3.8%) vs. drink driving (0.8%). This research provides evidence that drug driving is relatively prevalent on Queensland roads, and may in fact be more common than drink driving. This paper will further outline the study findings’ and present possible directions for future drug driving research.

Drink and drug driving in Australian young adult users and non-users of illicit stimulants

- Introduction There is limited understanding of how young adults’ driving behaviour varies according to long-term substance involvement. It is possible that regular users of amphetamine-type stimulants (i.e. ecstasy (MDMA) and methamphetamine) may have a greater predisposition to engage in drink/drug driving compared to non-users. We compare offence rates, and self-reported drink/drug driving rates, for stimulant users and non-users in Queensland, and examine contributing factors. - Methods The Natural History Study of Drug Use is a prospective longitudinal study using population screening to recruit a probabilistic sample of amphetamine-type stimulant users and non-users aged 19-23 years. At the 4 ½ year follow-up, consent was obtained to extract data from participants’ Queensland driver records (ATS users: n=217, non-users: n=135). Prediction models were developed of offence rates in stimulant users controlling for factors such as aggression and delinquency. - Results Stimulant users were more likely than non-users to have had a drink-driving offence (8.7% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). Further, about 26% of ATS users and 14% of non-users self-reported driving under the influence of alcohol during the last 12 months. Among stimulant users, drink-driving was independently associated with last month high-volume alcohol consumption (Incident Rate Ratio (IRR): 5.70, 95% CI: 2.24-14.52), depression (IRR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07-1.52), low income (IRR: 3.57, 95% CI: 1.12-11.38), and male gender (IRR: 5.40, 95% CI: 2.05-14.21). - Conclusions Amphetamine-type stimulant use is associated with increased long-term risk of drink-driving, due to a number of behavioural and social factors. Inter-sectoral approaches which target long-term behaviours may reduce offending rates.

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.

Applying Stafford and Warr’s Reconceptualization of Deterrence Theory to drug driving : can it predict those likely to offend?

In December 2007, random roadside drug testing commenced in Queensland, Australia. Subsequently, the aim of this study was to explore the preliminary impact of Queensland’s drug driving legislation and enforcement techniques by applying Stafford and Warr’s [Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 123-135] reconceptualization of deterrence theory. Completing a comprehensive drug driving questionnaire were 899 members of the public, university students, and individuals referred to a drug diversion program. Of note was that approximately a fifth of participants reported drug driving in the past six months. Additionally, the analysis indicated that punishment avoidance and vicarious punishment avoidance were predictors of the propensity to drug drive in the future. In contrast, there were indications that knowing of others apprehended for drug driving was not a sufficient deterrent. Sustained testing and publicity of the legislation and countermeasure appears needed to increase the deterrent impact for drug driving.

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.

Sex, drugs, and deterrence : applying Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence theory to drug driving across the genders

A consistent finding in the literature is that males report greater usage of drugs and subsequently greater amounts of drug driving. Research also suggests that vicarious influences may be more pertinent to males than to females. Utilising Stafford and Warr’s (1993) reconceptualization of deterrence theory, this study sought to determine if the relative deterrent impact of zero-tolerance drug driving laws is disparate between genders. A sample of motorists’ (N = 899) completed a self-report questionnaire assessing participants frequency of drug driving and personal and vicarious experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance. Results show that males were significantly more likely to report future intentions of drug driving. Additionally, vicarious experiences of punishment avoidance was a more influential predictor of future drug driving instances for males with personal experiences of punishment avoidance a more influential predictor for females. These findings can inform gender sensitive media campaigns and interventions for convicted drug drivers.

Deterring drug drivers : a study into the initial impact of oral random roadside drug testing in Queensland

Objective: The global implementation of oral random roadside drug testing is relatively limited, and correspondingly, the literature that focuses on the effectiveness of this intervention is scant. This study aims to provide a preliminary indication of the impact of roadside drug testing in Queensland. Methods: A sample of Queensland motorists’ (N= 922) completed a self-report questionnaire to investigate their drug driving behaviour, as well as examine the perceived affect of legal sanctions (certainty, severity and swiftness) and knowledge of the countermeasure on their subsequent offending behaviour. Results: Analysis of the collected data revealed that approximately 20% of participants reported drug driving at least once in the last six months. Overall, there was considerable variability in respondent’s perceptions regarding the certainty, severity and swiftness of legal sanctions associated with the testing regime and a considerable proportion remained unaware of testing practices. In regards to predicting those who intended to drug driving again in the future, perceptions of apprehension certainty, more specifically low certainty of apprehension, were significantly associated with self-reported intentions to offend. Additionally, self-reported recent drug driving activity and frequent drug consumption were also identified as significant predictors, which indicates that in the current context, past behaviour is a prominent predictor of future behaviour. To a lesser extent, awareness of testing practices was a significant predictor of intending not to drug drive in the future. Conclusion: The results indicate that drug driving is relatively prevalent on Queensland roads, and a number of factors may influence such behaviour. Additionally, while the roadside testing initiative is beginning to have a deterrent impact, its success will likely be linked with targeted intelligence-led implementation in order to increase apprehension levels as well as the general deterrent effect.

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.