Transcript Copyright Notice: These materials are subject to Copyright and their use is permitted for individual study purposes.

Copyright Notice:
These materials are subject to Copyright and their use is permitted for individual study purposes. They may not be
reproduced in any other manner for any other purpose without the express permission of the Lecturer.
Successes and challenges in managing
illegal road user behaviours
Barry Watson
Edmonton’s International
Conference on Urban Traffic
Safety, 17-21 April 2011
CRICOS No. 00213J
Overview
 The role of illegal behaviours in road crashes
 Three case studies in managing illegal road user
behaviour: an Australian perspective
 Current and emerging challenges, including the
need to:
 reduce punishment avoidance
 identify and manage recidivist offenders
 address community attitudes and perceptions
 Countermeasure implications
Crash causes
Rarely a single cause, but a
‘causal chain’ of events
Road user error
Road
conditions
 90% road user error
 30% road conditions
 10% vehicular defect or
failure
Vehicular
defect
Source: Shinar, 1978
Contributing factors to crashes
in Queensland: 2007
Factor
Fatal crashes (n = 338)
N
%
All crashes (n = 22832)
N
%
Alcohol / drugs
119
35.2%
2743
12.0%
Disobey road rules
105
31.1%
9775
42.8%
Inattention / distraction
96
28.4%
6600
28.9%
Speed
92
27.2%
1488
6.5%
Fatigue
59
17.5%
1239
5.4%
Inexperience
51
15.1%
4341
19.0%
Age (lack of perception)
25
7.4%
1164
5.1%
Rain / wet road
22
6.5%
2151
9.4%
Other driver conditions
17
5.0%
1319
5.8%
Negligence
15
4.4%
455
2.0%
Road conditions
11
3.3%
1332
5.8%
Vehicle defects
6
1.8%
690
3.0%
243
71.9%
20663
90.5%
Other
Note: More than one contributing factor could be attributed in a crash and hence factor
totals do not reflect crash totals, and percentages sum to more than 100%
Source: Web Crash
Strategies to modify illegal road
user behaviours
 Road safety agencies in Australia has largely relied
on coercive policies to modify behaviour (Elliott, 1992)
 Strong reliance on traffic law enforcement programs:
− traffic laws eg. BAC limits, speed limits
− traffic policing eg. breath testing, speed cameras
− sanctions eg. fines, loss of licence, gaol
 While public education is widely used, it appears
most effective when reinforcing enforcement
programs
Australia:
Population = 22.5 million
Queensland:
Population = 4.5 million
Land area = 1.7 million km2
Driver ‘s licences = 3.1 million
Reg.vehicles = 4.3 million
6
Case study 1:
Alcohol impaired driving
(Drink driving)
Percentage of fatally injured motorists with a
BAC of .05 or more in Australia: 1981-2006
(where BAC is known)
50
45
44
42
40
40
39
37
40
37
35
35
30
%
34
34
32
28
29
30
28
29
28
26
28
27
24
25
25
29
28
29
26
20
15
10
5
0
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Source: Dep‘t of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government, 2009
Source: Fell, 2010
Source: Mayhew, 2010
Percentage of drivers and riders killed with BAC
of .05 or more in Queensland: 1980-2007
(where BAC is known)
60
50
50
48 47
47
44
Major reductions have occurred over
time, but not in a continuous manner
39 38
40
%
45
34
31 31
33
31
28
30
33
35
33
28
27 26
25
25 25
32 31
28
25
20
10
0
1981
1984
1987
Source: Queensland Transport
1990
1993
Year
1996
1999
2002
2005
Drink driving enforcement in
Queensland
 History:
– 1968 - Breathalyser
– 1982 - .05 limit
– 1986 - Reduced Impaired Driving (RID)
– 1988 - Random Breath Testing (RBT)
 Penalties and sanctions progressively made
more severe and certain (e.g. licence loss for
drink driving is mandatory for most offenders)
 Policing supported by mass-media education
Source: Watson et al, 1994
Alcohol-related fatalities in
Queensland: 1978-1994
Step-wise reductions have coincided
with the introduction of new initiatives,
but the initial effects do not appear to
be maintained. This suggests that the
underlying mechanisms are not stable.
Source: Watson et al, 1994
Role of RBT
 RBT is the primary drink driving law enforcement tool
used throughout Australia
 The police have the power to pull over and breath test
drivers at any time, irrespective of their driving
behaviour
 Majority of tests are conducted in highly visible,
stationary mode (using a bus or police cars)
 Mobile car-based RBT used to detect evaders
 Drivers involved in crashes are typically breath tested
(if police attend)
 RBT is supported by mass media advertising
RBT and ‘booze bus’ operations
Sourced from police and media in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria
Effectiveness of RBT
 Evaluations suggest that RBT has produced longterm reductions in alcohol-related crashes
 However, degree of effectiveness appears to be
linked to type of program implementation
– Initial success linked to ‘boots and all’ approaches
featuring high, sustained high levels of testing
– Long-term success linked to sustaining testing levels
and innovation
 Many jurisdictions conduct the equivalent of one
RBT test per licensed driver every year
Sources: Homel, 1988; Watson et al, 1994; Henstridge et al, 1994; Hart et al, 2004
Self-reported exposure to RBT
(prior 6 months): 1993 to 2008
90
80
78
74
70
70
70
70
71
75
76
74
75
70
67
60
%
61
62
50
Seen RBT
Been tested
40
30
30
25
20
20
26
26
26
25
27
32
29
28
27
20
17
10
0
1993
1995
Source: Pennay, 2008
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
Alcohol impaired driving:
Challenges for achieving
further reductions
The dynamic nature of deterrence
Homel’s (1986) “Hole in the Bucket Model” of RBT
Punishment avoidance (1)
“... it is possible that punishment avoidance
does more to encourage crime than
punishment does to discourage it.
Offenders whose experience is limited
largely to avoiding punishment may come
to believe that they are immune from
punishment, even in the face of occasional
evidence to the contrary” (Stafford & Warr, 1993, p. 125)
Punishment avoidance (2)
 Approximately 1 - 2% of drivers checked at RBT have an
illegal BAC (depending on mode of operation)
 4% of drivers nationally report that it is “very likely” or “fairly
likely” they have driven over the limit in last 12 months
(Petroulis, 2009)
 27% of Queensland respondents reported driving at least
once in the last six months when they thought they may
have been over the limit (Watson & Freeman, 2007)
 Many first offenders admit to drink driving in the past
 Restricted ‘work licences’ are available for first-time
offenders with a BAC of < .10 (recently reduced from
<.150)
Punishment avoidance (3)
 Experiences of punishment avoidance were found to
be a strong predictor of offenders’ self-reported:
− past offending behaviour
− intentions to offend in the future (Freeman & Watson, 2006)
Recidivist drink drivers (1)
 International concern about recidivist drink drivers
 Strong relationship between repeat offending and
high-range BACs
 Not a homogenous group, but are more likely that
general drivers to:
– consume greater amounts of alcohol, experience
alcohol-related problems and be alcohol-dependent
– exhibit antisocial and deviant tendencies, aggression,
hostility, thrill-seeking
– to have poor driving histories, to use drugs and a have
criminal history
Source: Mayhew, Simpson & Bierness, 1997
Recidivist drink drivers (2)
 In 2004, there were over 25,000 drivers convicted
of drink driving in Queensland, representing 1% of
all drivers
 15% of these drink driving offenders had at least
one previous offence in the preceding three years
 14% of crash-involved drink drivers had a
previous offence in the preceding three years
 The recidivist offenders were more likely to have
higher BACs
Source: Leal, King & Lewis, 2006
Recidivist drink drivers (3)
 Despite long-term lobbying in Queensland:
 drink driver rehabilitation programs are only
offered on a voluntary basis
 vehicle impoundment for repeat, high-range (BAC
≥.150) offenders was not introduced until 2008
 the first impoundment period for these offenders is
only 48 hours
 alcohol ignition interlocks for high-range first
offenders and repeat offenders was not introduced
until 2010
Community attitudes
 Strong community support for drink driving
countermeasures, with 98% of drivers supporting
RBT operations (Petroulias, 2009)
 Strong support recently shown in Queensland for:
 mandatory referral to assessment/rehabilitation for high
level offenders
 compulsory blood testing of drivers attending hospital
 mandatory brief interventions for first time offenders
 constraining the availability of ‘work licences’
 Only 31% supported reviewing the general BAC limit
(Soole, King & Watson, 2010)
The role of alcohol in society
 The greater availability and use of alcohol within the
community represents a countervailing influence:
– Increase in national per capita alcohol consumption
– Emergence of ‘binge drinking culture: 62.3% of
alcohol is consumed at high-risk levels
– New alcohol products (alcopops) targeting young
adults
– Alcoholic drinks not taxed on alcohol content
– Relaxation of laws governing liquor licences and
opening hours for liquor establishments (due to
National Competition Policy)
Drink driving priorities
 Reduce punishment avoidance through
enhancements to policing programs
 Improve management of recidivist drink driving
offenders
 Capitalise on strong community support for
drink driving initiatives by lobbying for:
 better managing the availability of alcohol within
the community, particularly to young adults
 the development of non-intrusive alcohol ignition
interlock devices in all motor vehicles
Case study 2:
Speeding
Speed management in Australia
 Over the last 20 years, Australian jurisdictions
have adopted a ‘holistic’ approach to reducing
speeding involving:
– Road environment improvements (e.g. lower urban
speed limits, road treatments)
– Enforcement programs (e.g. traffic patrols, fixed &
mobile speed cameras, point-to-point cameras)
– Education programs (e.g. mass media education)
– Intelligent Transport System (ITS) measures (e.g.
vehicle activated and variable message signs)
Speeding enforcement in Queensland
 History:
– 1997 – 2003 – 2007 – 2010 -
Mobile speed cameras (highly visible, randomly
deployed around selected ‘crash’ sites)
Penalties for speeding substantially increased
Fixed ‘blackspot’ speed cameras and increase in
mobile speed camera sites
Covert speed cameras and trialing of point-topoint (average) speed cameras
 Policing supported by mass-media education
 Evaluations of mobile speed cameras indicate:
− 34% reduction in fatal crashes within 2km of sites
− 42% reduction in serious casualty crashes within 2km
Source: Newstead, 2006; Cameron, 2008; Carnis, Rakotonirainy & Fleiter, 2008
Percentage of fatalities involving speeding
drivers/riders in Queensland: 12 months
ending January 2006 -2011
30
25
20
%
15
10
5
0
2006
2007
Source: Queensland TMR, 2011, p.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
CRICOS No. 00213J
The effectiveness of increases in
speeding penalties
 Limited international research has been undertaken
into the effectiveness of different speeding penalties
 Increasing the severity of speeding penalties (in
isolation) has been found to produce very few
impacts on behaviour in Sweden (1982 & 1987) and
Norway (1995-2004)
 Need to consider impact of speeding penalties in:
– deterring the general population from speeding
(general deterrence)
– reducing recidivism among offenders (specific
Source: Watson et al. (2010)
deterrence)
Background to study
 In April 2003, Queensland introduced changes
to the speeding penalty regime:
– Increased monetary fines
– Automatic licence suspension for high range
speeding (for >40 km/h over the speed limit)
 The stated rationale for this change was to
deter speeding behaviour
 The aim of our study was to examine the
specific deterrent impact of the changes
Speeding penalty changes
Table 1. Speeding offences and penalties in Qld prior to 17 April, 2003
Offence
Fine
Demerit Points
<15 km/hr over speed limit
$90
1
15-29 km/hr over speed limit
$135
3
30-44 km/hr over speed limit
$180
4
>44 km/hr over speed limit
$255
6
Table 2. Speeding offences and penalties in Qld from 17 April, 2003
Offence
Fine
Demerit Points
<13 km/hr over speed limit
$100
1
13-20 km/hr over speed limit
$150
3
21-29 km/hr over speed limit
$250
4
30-40 km/hr over speed limit
$300
6
>40 km/hr over speed limit
$700
8 + 6 months suspension
Method (1)
 Crash and offence data from 1996 to 2007 was
obtained for two cohorts of drivers:
 58,000 drivers convicted of speeding in May 2001
 53,000 drivers convicted of speeding in May 2003
 Data obtained included details of:
– index offence (eg. method of detection)
– previous and subsequent traffic crashes and offences
– demographic characteristics
– licence type and class
Method (2)
 Final sample for current analyses excluded interstate
and international licence holders:
– 2001 pre-penalty change cohort (n = 46,681)
– 2003 post-penalty change cohort (n = 42,180)
 Speeding offence records for two years after the index
offence were examined
 Distinction between:
 Absolute specific deterrence – the total prevention of reoffending
 Marginal specific deterrence – a reduction in re-offending
Measures of recidivism
In the follow up period:
1. Proportion of all offenders detected reoffending (Absolute specific deterrence)
2. Length of delay to re-offence among reoffenders (Marginal specific deterrence)
3. Average number of re-offences among reoffenders (Marginal specific deterrence)
CRICOS No. 00213J
1. Proportion of re-offending
(among all offenders)
Proportion of
Proportion of
2001 cohort who 2003 cohort who
re-offended
re-offended
within 2 years
within 2 years
55.7%
45.1%
p < .001,  =.03
2. Delay to re-offence
(among re-offenders)
Mean days to
re-offence
SD
Range
2001
cohort
2003
cohort
313 days
285 days
204
198
1 – 730
days
1 – 730
days
p < .001,  = .05
3. Average number of re-offences
(among re-offenders)
2001
cohort
2003
cohort
Mean days to
re-offence
2.94
3.00
SD
1.62
1.79
2 – 55
offences
2 – 58
offences
Range
ns
Intensity of speed enforcement
Speed
2001 Cohort period
2003 Cohort period
Percentage
enforcement May 2001 – April 2003 May 2003 – April 2005
change
Measure*
Hours of
operation
Number of
offences
detected
Detection
rate
414,699
594,093
43%
1,170,373
1,121,735
- 4%
2.82
1.89
* Includes all speed camera and radar based speed enforcement
Implications for road safety
 The introduction of more severe speeding penalties in
Queensland appears to have had a absolute specific
deterrent effect and reduced re-offending in the
following two years
 However, the change appears to have had little
impact on the overall frequency of re-offending among
those who did re-offend
 Further research is required into the effectiveness of
speeding penalties and sanctions
 Need to consider tailored sanctions for recidivist
(persistent) speeders
Speeding:
Challenges for achieving
further reductions in
speed-related crashes
Punishment avoidance
 Drivers report using a variety of strategies to avoid
being detected for speeding:
−
−
−
−
−
driving below the enforcement threshold
learning the sites where speed cameras are situated
being vigilant to overt and covert operations
opportunistic demerit points sharing
fraudulent demerit points sharing
 Experiences of punishment avoidance found to be a
strong predictor of self-reported speeding
 Punishment avoidance strategies appear more
common among ‘regular’ speeders
Sources: Fleiter et al., 2007; Fleiter & Watson, 2007; Fleiter, 2010
Speeding recidivism study (1)
 Conducted a study to:
– examine the demographic characteristics and traffic
offence histories of speeding offenders
– compare the characteristics and offence histories of
low and mid-range offenders with high-range, repeat
speeding offenders
 Utilised the data from the speeding penalty change
study for the combined 2001 and 2003 cohorts
(because no differences on key variables of interest)
 Examined five years of offence history, prior to the
index speeding offence
Source: Watson et al. (2009)
Speeding recidivism study (2)
 Three classifications of offenders were
determined ‘a priori’
– Low-range: one offence less than 15km/hr over
speed limit during study timeframe
– Mid-range: at least one offence more than 15km/hr
over the speed limit
– High-range: two or more offences, with at least two
being 30 km/hr or more over the speed limit (i.e.
high range, repeat offenders)
Breakdown of offenders
(n = 84,468)
High-range
3.7%
Mid-range
90.5%
Low-range
5.8%
Gender of offenders
90.2%
65.1%
50.5%
49.5%
Male
34.9%
Female
9.8%
Low-range
Mid-range
High-range
Low-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 1333.7, p < .001, c= .41
Mid-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 840.4, p < .001, c= .10
Age of offenders
40.5%
17.2%
9.4%
Low-range
Mid-range
High-range
Low-range vs. high-range: 2 (6) = 2166.9, p < .001, c= .35
Mid-range vs. high-range: 2 (6) = 1721.1, p < .001, c= .10
17 - 24
25 - 29
30 - 39
40 - 49
50 - 59
60+
Offenders’ licence status
91.7%
86.5%
64.8%
Learner
29.1%
Provisional
3.4% 4.9%
Low-range
4.1% 9.4%
Mid-range
6.1%
Open
High-range
Low-range vs. high-range: 2 (2) = 980.2, p < .001, c= .35
Mid-range vs. high-range: 2 (2) = 1334.2, p < .001, c= .13
Offenders’ licence class
70.4%
64.8%
54.6%
Car only
38.5%
Motorcycle
18.5%
24.1%
HV only
Car + HV
Low-range
Mid-range
High-range
Low-range vs. high-range: 2 (3) = 430.7, p < .001, c= .23
Mid-range vs. high-range: 2 (3) = 364.2, p < .001, c= .07
Drink driving offence history
98.6%
95.7%
88.6%
Yes
No
11.4%
1.4%
4.3%
Low-range
Mid-range
High-range
Low-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 376.9, p < .001, c= .22
Mid-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 346.3, p < .001, c= .07
Dangerous driving offence history
100.0%
99.2%
96.6%
Yes
No
0.0%
0.8%
3.4%
Low-range
Mid-range
High-range
Low-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 170.6, p < .001, c= .15
Mid-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 217.8, p < .001, c= .05
Unlicensed driving offence history
100.0%
98.6%
91.7%
Yes
No
8.3%
0.0%
1.4%
Low-range
Mid-range
High-range
Low-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 417.8, p < .001, c= .23
Mid-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 876.3, p < .001, c= .11
Seat belt offence history
100.0%
96.6%
91.0%
Yes
No
0.0%
3.4%
Low-range
Mid-range
9.0%
High-range
Low-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 454.8, p < .001, c= .51
Mid-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 271.8, p < .001, c= .06
Other offence history
100.0%
86.4%
63.5%
36.5%
Yes
No
13.6%
0.0%
Low-range
Mid-range
High-range
Low-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 2082.9, p < .001, c= .51
Mid-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 1265.8, p < .001, c= .13
Implications for road safety
 Logistic regression analyses confirmed that highrange, repeat offenders are more likely to be:
− male and younger,
− hold an provisional (intermediate) licence or ride a
motorcycle
− have committed other offences
 High-range, repeat speeding offenders appear a
problematic group of drivers
 Need to consider innovative strategies for reducing
recidivism among high-range, repeat offenders
− vehicle impoundment
− intelligent speed adaption (ISA)
Community attitudes & perceptions (1)
 There is a ‘speed paradox’:
− drivers are increasingly reporting more negative attitudes
to speeding and are more supportive of enforcement
efforts, but
− many report continuing to speed above the speed limit
 This mismatch may be due to:
− differences among drivers in the way they define
speeding i.e. what constitutes speeding
− the role of factors other than attitudes in determining
speed choice
 It appears that a ‘de facto’ speed limit exists for many
drivers, reflecting a perceived enforcement tolerance
Source: Fleiter & Watson, 2007
Community attitudes & perceptions (2)
Percentage of drivers reporting their preferred
speeds, by speed zone
Preferred speed
60 km/h zone
%
100 km/h zone
%
At limit or below
65.6
41.6
Less than 10 km/h above
24.4
25.0
10 km/h or more above
9.3
28.2
20 km/h or more above
0.7
5.2
Source: Fleiter & Watson, 2007
Speed management priorities (1)
 Reduce punishment avoidance by:
− identifying best mix of automatic and manned
enforcement operations
− develop strategies to reduce enforcement ‘site learning’
without compromising overall visibility
− implementing innovative strategies like point-to-point
enforcement which identifies persistent speeding over
longer distances
 Implement innovative sanctions for reducing
speeding recidivism
− vehicle impoundment
− intelligent speed adaption (ISA)
Speed management priorities (2)
 Use public education to:
− address community perceptions about enforcement
tolerances that result in ‘de facto’ speed limits
− challenge the illusionary benefits of time savings
− challenge the perception that speeding is OK because
everyone else does it
− discourage parents and friends from modeling poor
behaviour to other drivers
− encourage the voluntary take-up of ISA among
individuals and organisations
Case study 3:
Unlicensed driving
Road safety implications of
unlicensed driving (1)
 Undermines driver licensing system
– reduces ability of authorities to monitor & manage
drivers
– undermines deterrent effect of licence loss
 Growing body of evidence indicating that
unlicensed drivers are over-represented in:
– in more severe crashes
– crashes involving alcohol, speeding and motorcycles
– all crashes by a factor of approximately three to four
Source: Watson, 2004a,b
CRICOS No. 00213J
Who are unlicensed drivers?
 All those who drive without a valid licence
 Expired licence
 Inappropriate licence
 Drive outside of restrictions
 Suspended from driving
 Disqualified from driving
 Don’t currently hold a licence
 Never held a licence
Source: Watson, 2004a
Proportion of unlicensed controllers
in fatal crashes in Queensland
12
% Unlicensed
10
8
6
4
2
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Source: Queensland Road Crash Database, TMR
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Unlicensed driving:
Challenges for reducing
the prevalence of the
behaviour
Punishment avoidance (1)
 A survey of 309 unlicensed driving offenders in
Queensland found:
− 164 (53.1%) offenders reported being pulled over
for a RBT at least once
 97 (31.4%) reported that their licence wasn’t
checked at least once
 58 (18.8%) failed to have licence checked on two or
more occasions
 Small number of offenders didn’t have licence
checked when caught speeding or for another
offence
Sources: Watson, 2003; 2004a
Punishment avoidance (2)
 8 offenders avoided having their licence checked
after a crash
 In total:
 113 (36.6%) were able to evade detection on one or
more occasions
 67 (21.7%) evaded detection on two or more
occasions
 Evasion of detection was significantly associated
with the self-reported frequency of unlicensed
driving (rpb=.31, p <.001)
Sources: Watson, 2003; 2004a
Other key findings (1)
 Punishment avoidance was the strongest predictor of
the reported frequency of unlicensed driving
 31% of offenders reported that they continued to drive
unlicensed after being detected (up until court date)
 Needing to drive for work purposes was a strong
predictor of continued driving after detection
 Significant predictors of intentions to drive unlicensed
in the future were:
 Mixing with others who drive unlicensed
 Holding favourable attitudes to unlicensed driving
 Anticipating fewer social punishments for the behaviour
Community attitudes & perceptions
 While Learner & Provisional drivers must carry their
licence in Queensland, Open licence holders have 48
hours to present it at a Police station
 A 2009 telephone survey of Queensland drivers found:
− 69% thought it was a requirement to carry your
licence
− 82% approved of a law requiring drivers to carry their
licence at all times (Petroulias, 2009)
 The Queensland Government recently announced that
it had no plans to remove the 48 hour grace period
Unlicensed driver priorities (1)
 Need to improve the detection of unlicensed
driving (to minimise punishment avoidance)
 Compulsory carriage of licences
 Checking of licences as part of breath testing and
other operations
 Targeted operations using ANPR technology
 Need to enhance punishment processes
 Examine adequacy of penalties
 More tailored rehabilitation programs
 Introduce/enhance vehicle impoundment programs
Unlicensed driver priorities (2)
 Need to encourage participation in the licensing
system
 Reduce barriers to entering the licensing system,
particularly for disadvantaged groups
 Encourage and facilitate the checking of employees’
licence status by organisations
 Incentives for offenders to participate in alcohol ignition
interlock and ISA programs e.g. reduced suspension
periods
 Continue development of electronic licences
Closing thoughts
 Other behaviours for which considerable
punishment avoidance appears to be occurring:
− Mobile (cell) phone use – calling and texting
− Seat belt wearing – night time, back seat
− Drug driving
− Novice driver licensing restrictions
− Motorcycle risk-taking
− Street racing
Conclusion (1)
 Our success in modifying illegal road user behaviour
has varied across behaviours
− major reductions have been achieved in alcohol-related
driver fatalities, but these appear to have plateued
− speed enforcement appears effective in reducing speeding
and related crashes in the vicinity of operations
− unlicensed driving remains a concern
− other illegal behaviours like cell phone use remain
widespread
 While many innovative strategies have been
introduced to detect and deter illegal behaviours, more
attention is required to reduce punishment avoidance
Conclusion (2)
 More effective sanctions and rehabilitation programs
are required for recidivist offenders
 The further application of technology is required to
address both general and repeat offending:
− expansion of alcohol ignition interlocks into the vehicle
fleet (offenders, organisations, individuals)
− innovative automated enforcement operations like point-topoint speed enforcement, headway cameras
− expansion of ISA into the vehicle fleet (offenders,
organisations, individuals)
− development of electronic licences
− ITS solutions to cell phone use
Conclusion (3)
 Ongoing public education efforts are required to:
− encourage voluntary compliance with road rules
− build public support for enforcement efforts
− challenge the misconceptions underpinning some
illegal behaviour e.g. time benefits of speeding
− discourage parents and friends from modeling poor
behaviour to other drivers
− encourage the voluntary take-up of new technology
like alcohol ignition interlocks and ISA
Questions?
[email protected]
Mark your Diaries!
International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety
Conference (ICADTS T2013)
August 2013, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre
References (1)
Cameron, M. (2008). Development for strategies for best practice in speed enforcement in Western Australia –,
Supplementary Report. Report 277. Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre.
Carnis, L., Rakotonirainy, A., & Fleiter, J. (2008) Speed enforcement programmes in France and Queensland: First
elements for a systematic comparison. In High risk road users - motivating behaviour change: what works and what
doesn't work? National Conference of the Australasian College of Road Safety and the Travelsafe Committee of the
Queensland Parliament, 18-19 September 2008, Brisbane.
Elliott, B. (1992). Achieving high levels of compliance with road safety laws: A review of road user behaviour
modification. Brisbane: Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee.
Fell, J. (2010). Alcohol involvement in fatally injured drivers in the United States: 1982-2008. Presentation at Recent
Trends in Alcohol and Other Drug Involvement in Drivers Killed in Crashes Workshop. 19th International Council on
Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference (T2010), 22 - 26 August 2010, Oslo, Norway.
Fleiter, J. (2010). Examining psychosocial influences on speeding in Australian and Chines contexts: A social
learning approach. Unpublished PhD thesis. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Fleiter, J. & Watson, B. (2006). The speed paradox: The misalignment between driver attitudes and speeding
behaviour. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 17 (2), 23 - 30.
Fleiter, J. & Watson, B. Public perceptions of road trauma: How well does the community understand the size of the
road toll? Unpublished manuscript.
Hart, S., Watson, B. & Tay, R. (2003). Barriers and facilitators to the effective operation of RBT in Queensland. 2003
Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference - From Research to Action: Conference Proceedings
Peer Reviewed (pp.137-142). Sydney: NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.
References (2)
Henstridge, J., Homel, R. & Mackay, P. (1997). The long-term effects of Random Breath Testing in four Australian
states: A time series analysis, CR 162, Federal Office of Road Safety, Canberra.
Homel, R. (1986). Policing the drinking driver: Random Breath Testing and the process of deterrence. Canberra:
Federal Office of Road Safety.
Leal, N., King, Mark J. & Lewis, I. (2006) Profiling Drink Driving Offenders in Queensland. In 2006 Australasian Road
Safety Research, Policing & Education Conference, October 25 - 27, 2006, Gold Coast, Australia.
Newstead, S. (2006). Evaluation of the crash effects of the Queensland speed camera program in the year 2005.
Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre.
Mayhew, D. (2010). Trends in the alcohol-fatal crash problem in Canada. Presentation at Recent Trends in Alcohol
and Other Drug Involvement in Drivers Killed in Crashes Workshop. 19th International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and
Traffic Safety Conference (T2010), 22 - 26 August 2010, Oslo, Norway.
Mayhew D.R., Simpson H.M. and Beirness D.J. (1997). The hard core drinking driver revisited. In C.Mercier-Guyon
(Ed.), 14th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety - T'97, Vol.2. Annecy, France: Centre
d'Etudes et de Recherches en Medecine du Trafic.
Pennay, D. (2008). Community attitudes to road safety – 2008 Survey Report. Road Safety Report No.3. Canberra:
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government.
Queensland TMR (2011). Queensland Road Toll Weekly Report No. 689. Year to date to Sunday 10 April 2011.
Brisbane: Queensland Department of Transport & Main Roads.
Stafford, M.C. & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, Vol.30, No.2, 123-135.
References (3)
Soole, D., King, M., & Watson, B. (2010). Summary of Key Findings from the Drink Driving Discussion Paper
Consultation Process. Report prepared for Transport and Main Roads – Queensland. Brisbane: Centre for Accident
Research and Road Safety - Qld (CARRS-Q).
Watson B. (2003). The road safety implications of unlicensed driving: A survey of unlicensed drivers. Canberra:
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). [Available: http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/research/unlicensed_driving.cfm]
Watson, B. (2004a). The psychosocial characteristics and on-road behaviour of
unlicensed drivers. Unpublished Doctorial Thesis. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Watson, B. (2004b). The crash risk of disqualified/suspended and other unlicensed drivers. Oliver, Williams &
Clayton (Eds), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (T2004),
Glasgow: International Council on Alcohol, Drugs &Traffic Safety (ICADTS).
Watson, B., Fraine, G. & Mitchell, L. (1994). Enhancing the effectiveness of RBT in Queensland. Prevention of
Alcohol Related Road Crashes: Social and Legal Approaches Conference, Brisbane, 20 August 1994. Brisbane:
Griffith University.
Watson, B., Fresta, J., Whan, H., McDonald, J., Dray, R., Bauermann, C. & Churchward, R. (1996). Enhancing driver
management in Queensland. Brisbane: Land Transport & Safety Division, Queensland Transport.
Watson, B., Watson, A., Siskind, V. & Fleiter, J. (2009). Characteristics and predictors of high-range speeding
offences. Proceedings of the 2009 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference. Sydney:
Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW.
Watson, B., Siskind, V., Fleiter, J. & Watson, A. (2010). Different approaches to measuring specific deterrence:
some examples from speeding offender management. Proceedings of the 2010 Australasian Road Safety Research,
Policing and Education Conference. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development &
Local Government.