A roadside survey of unlicensed driving in Queensland

Unlicensed driving remains a serious problem in many jurisdictions, and while it does not play a direct causative role in road crashes, it undermines driver licensing systems and is linked to other high risk driving behaviours. Roadside licence check surveys represent the most direct means of estimating the prevalence of unlicensed driving. The current study involved the Queensland Police Service (QPS) checking the licences of 3,112 drivers intercepted at random breath testing operations across Queensland between February and April 2010. Data was matched with official licensing records from Transport and Main Roads (TMR) via the drivers’ licence number. In total, 2,914 (93.6%) records were matched, with the majority of the 198 unmatched cases representing international or interstate licence holders (n = 156), leaving 42 unknown cases. Among the drivers intercepted at the roadside, 20 (0.6%) were identified as being unlicensed at the time, while a further 11 (0.4%) were driving unaccompanied on a Learner Licence. However, the examination of TMR licensing records revealed that an additional 9 individuals (0.3%) had a current licence sanction but were not identified as unlicensed by QPS. Thus, in total 29 of the drivers were unlicensed at the time, representing 0.9% of all the drivers intercepted and 1% of those for whom their licence records could be checked. This is considerably lower than the involvement of unlicensed drivers in fatal and serious injury crashes in Queensland, which is consistent with other research confirming the increased crash risk of the group. However, the number of unmatched records suggest that it is possible the on-road survey may have under-estimated the prevalence of unlicensed driving, so further development of the survey method is recommended.

Report to VicRoads: Extent of unlicensed driving - follow up Ref 143 - Alcohol Harms Inquiry

Unlicensed driving is a serious problem in many countries, despite ongoing improvements in traffic law enforcement practices and technology. The term "unlicensed driver" is generally used to refer to people who drive or ride a motor vehicle without a valid driver's licence, including those who: • Have let their licence expire, • Have been disqualified or suspended from driving, • Hold an inappropriate licence for the class of vehicle they drive, • Drive outside the restrictions of a special licence, • Don’t currently hold a licence, or • Have never held a licence (Watson, 2003, 2004a)...

A comparison of methods to estimate the extent of unlicensed driving: Literature review. Final report to Queensland Transport

Unlicensed driving is a serious problem in many countries, despite ongoing improvements in traffic law enforcement practices and technology. The term ‘unlicensed driver' is generally used to refer to people who operate a motor vehicle or motorcycle without a valid driver's licence, including those who: • have let their licence expire; • have been disqualified or suspended from driving; • hold an inappropriate class of licence for the vehicle they drive; • drive outside the restrictions of a special licence; • don’t currently hold a licence; or • have never held a licence.

Final report : Estimating the extent of unlicensed driving: Roadside licence check survey - Wave2. Report to Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

This report documents a second, revised roadside licence check survey undertaken by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) in conjunction with roadside random breath testing (RBT) traffic operations. The methodology utilised was devised by the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q), Transport and Main Roads (TMR) and QPS, after consideration of a number of options.

An examination of the factors contributing to unlicensed driving. Report to Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

Unlicensed driving is a serious problem in many countries, despite ongoing improvements in traffic law enforcement practices and technology. Unlike alcohol impairment and speeding, unlicensed driving does not play a direct causative role in road crashes. However it represents a major problem for road safety in two respects. Firstly, it undermines the effectiveness of driver licensing systems by preventing the allocation of demerit points and reducing the impact of licence loss (Watson, 2004b). Secondly, there is a growing body of evidence linking unlicensed driving to a cluster of high-risk behaviours including drink driving, speeding, failure to wear seat belts and motorcycle use (Griffin & DeLaZerda, 2000; Harrison, 1997; Watson, 1997, 2004b). Consistent with this, utilising the quasi-induced exposure method, Watson (2004a) estimated that in Queensland, unlicensed drivers were almost three times more likely to be involved in a reported crash than licensed drivers.

Links between unlicensed and unregistered driving (Data analysis). Report to Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

There is a current lack of understanding regarding the use of unregistered vehicles on public roads and road-related areas, and the links between the driving of unregistered vehicles and a range of dangerous driving behaviours. This report documents the findings of data analysis conducted to investigate the links between unlicensed driving and the driving of unregistered vehicles, and is an important initial undertaking into understanding these behaviours. This report examines de-identified data from two sources: crash data; and offence data. The data was extracted from the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) databases and covered the period from 2003 to 2008.

Driving and licensing experiences of learner drivers in two Australian states prior to major changes in the licensing laws

The learner licence is an important component of the graduated driver licensing system. This research describes the driving and licensing experiences of learner drivers in Queensland and New South Wales licensed prior to the changes made to the system in mid-2007. The sample consisted of 392 participants who completed a telephone interview just after they obtained their provisional licence. The results suggest that learner drivers in the two states had many similar experiences when they were obtaining a learner licence. However, once a learner licence was obtained, there were differences in the amount of practice, the supervisor learners practised with, the type of vehicle they used and the amount of unlicensed driving. This paper provides important baseline descriptive data that can be used to measure the impact of the changes that were introduced to the learner licence phase in mid-2007 in both of these states.

Unlicensed drivers : are they high risk?

- Road safety implications of unlicensed driving - Present results from three studies examining: the crash involvement of unlicensed drivers; the impact of licence disqualification on offending; characteristics of unlicensed driving offenders - Countermeasure implications - Discussion of high-risk groups and innovative countermeasure options

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.

The prevalence and crash involvement of unlicensed drivers in Queensland

- Road safety implications of unlicensed driving - Present results from two studies conducted in Queensland examining: - the crash involvement of unlicensed drivers and the risks associated with the behaviour - the prevalence of unlicensed driving using a roadside survey method - Countermeasure options

Crash involvement patterns of unlicensed drivers and riders in Queensland. Report to Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

Unlicensed driving remains a serious problem for road safety, despite ongoing improvements in traffic law enforcement practices and technology. While it does not play a direct causative role in road crashes, unlicensed driving undermines the integrity of the driver licensing system and is associated with a range of high-risk behaviours. This report examines official road crash data from Queensland for the years 2003-08 to compare the crash involvement patterns of unlicensed drivers with those of licensed drivers and explore the scope and nature of unlicensed driving. This study replicates and extends upon two previous studies examining the involvement of unlicensed drivers in crashes in Queensland (Watson, 2004a; 2004b; Watson & Steinhardt, 2006).

Profiling unlicensed drivers and riders in Queensland. Report to Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

Unlicensed driving remains a serious problem for road safety, despite ongoing improvements in traffic law enforcement practices and technology. This report examines de-identified traffic infringement and sanction histories for drivers in Queensland who had lost their licence between 1st January 2003 and 31st December 2008. A total of 546,117 Queensland drivers were identified. Key areas discussed include the prevalence of unlicensed driving and the extent to which particular offences were detected amongst drivers with a licence sanction or disqualified licence.

Crash involvement patterns of unlicensed drivers: Literature review. Report to Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

There is a lack of definitive evidence available relating to the extent and nature of unlicensed driving. Analysis of the crash involvement of unlicensed drivers provides an opportunity to better understand the behaviours of this group. This paper reviews the available literature relating to crash involvement patterns of unlicensed drivers. Key areas discussed include the prevalence of unlicensed driving as indicated by studies of crashes involving this group and associations between unlicensed driving and higher levels of risk-taking on the road. This paper also notes differences found in the characteristics and on-road behaviour of unlicensed drivers and the degree to which these factors, in particular alcohol and drug misuse, may influence crash involvement patterns. Drawing on Australian and international studies, this paper consolidates the available research evidence and identifies gaps in current knowledge relating to crash involvement patterns of unlicensed drivers.

Unlicensed and unregistered vehicle project: Summary report. Report to Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

Unlicensed driving remains a serious problem for road safety, despite ongoing improvements in traffic law enforcement practices and technology. While it does not play a direct causative role in road crashes, unlicensed driving undermines the integrity of the driver licensing system and is associated with a range of high-risk behaviours. The Queensland Transport and Main Roads (TMR) commissioned a program of research with separate components relating to different aspects of unlicensed driving. Drawing on Australian and international studies, the Unlicensed and Unregistered Vehicle (UUV) project explores the nature of unlicensed driving in Queensland, consolidates the available research evidence and identifies gaps in current knowledge relating to the driving behaviours of unlicensed drivers.