Repeat speeding offenders – Results from research in Queensland, Australia Dr Judy Fleiter

Repeat speeding offenders – Results from research in

Queensland, Australia

Dr Judy Fleiter

CRICOS No. 00213J

Department of Transport, Finland5 June 2012

Acknowledgements

Co-researchers– Barry Watson, Vic Siskind, Angela Watson

Australian Research Council– Department of Transport and Main Roads– Queensland Police Service– Office of Economic and Statistical Research

National Health and Medical Research Council Asia-Australia Postdoctoral Research Fellowship

Overview

Speeding and crash involvement in Australia Speeding recidivist research in Queensland Challenges from an Australian perspective

Auditor-General reviews of speed camera programs

Implications for future speed management

Australia

Brisbane

Australia = 22.8 million people

Queensland = 4.5 million people Land area = 1.7 million km2

Driver’s licences = 3.1 millionReg.vehicles = 4.3 million

Australian Road Deaths:Improvements from 1970-2010

30.4 deaths/100,000 people 6.1 deaths/100,000 people

With a 2-fold increase in vehicles & 50% growth in population

Improvements in Road Safety in Queensland since 1967

Speed management in Australia (1)

Over the last 2 decades, jurisdictions have adopted a ‘holistic’ approach to reducing speeding:– Road environment improvements (e.g. lower urban

speed limits, school zones, 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)

Speed management in Australia (2)

Strong reliance on traffic law enforcement programs:− traffic laws (eg. speed limits)− traffic policing (eg. speed cameras)− sanctions (eg. fines, demerit points, licence loss)

Speeding enforcement in Queensland History:

– 1997: Mobile speed cameras (highly visible, randomly deployed around selected ‘crash’

sites)– 2003: Penalties for speeding substantially increased– 2007: Fixed ‘blackspot’ speed cameras and increase in

mobile speed camera sites– 2010: Covert speed cameras introduced– 2011: Point-to-point (average) speed cameras

operational on 1 section of highway north of Brisbane

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

Newstead, 2006; Cameron, 2008; Carnis, Rakotonirainy & Fleiter, 2008

Focus of Traffic Policing

• The Fatal 4– Speeding– Drink driving– Fatigue – driving while tired– Non-use of Seatbelts

CRICOS No. 00213J

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percentage of fatalities involving speeding drivers/riders in Queensland: 12 months ending

January 2006 -2011

Year

%

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011

Percentage of speeding infringements per penalty category, Queensland

< 13 13-20 21-30 31-40 40+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

40.3

50.7

7.61 0.4

Km/hour above the speed limit

% o

f inf

ringe

men

ts

Queensland Transport, 2008

Speeding offenders...• Are they all the same?

• Does increasing penalties make any difference?

• What else do they do?

• What might best change their driving behaviour?

Background to recidivism research project

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)

– Increased the number of offence bands/categories

The stated rationale for this change was to deter speeding behaviour

Speeding penalty changesSpeeding offences and penalties in Qld prior to 17 April, 2003

Speeding offences and penalties in Qld from 17 April, 2003

Offence Fine Demerit Points<15 km/hr over speed limit $90 1

15-29 km/hr over speed limit $135 3


>44 km/hr over speed limit $255 6

Offence Fine Demerit Points<13 km/hr over speed limit $100 1




>40 km/hr over speed limit $700 8 + 6 months suspension

The effectiveness of increases in speeding penalties

Limited international research into effectiveness of different speeding penalties

Increasing speeding penalties severity (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 deterrence)

Watson et al. 2010

Speeding recidivism research

Our research aimed to: examine the specific deterrent impact of the

changes profile speeding offenders/recidivists

Method (1)

Crash and offence data from 1996 to 2007 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

– 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 re-offending- Marginal specific deterrence – a reduction in re-offending

Measures of recidivismIn the follow up period:

1. Proportion of all offenders detected re-offending (Absolute specific deterrence)

2. Average number of offences (Absolute and marginal specific deterrence)

3. Length of delay to re-offence among re-offenders (Marginal specific deterrence)

4. Average number of re-offences among re-offenders (Marginal specific deterrence)

CRICOS No. 00213J

Overall impact of penalty change

Measure of recidivism Hypotheses Outcome

Overall proportion of re-offending in the follow up period

Reduction in the proportion who re-offend after penalty change

Overall frequency of re-offending in the follow up period

Reduction in average number of offences committed (overall) after penalty change

Length of delay to re-offence among re-offenders

Among those who re-offend, longer delay to re-offence after penalty change

Average number of re-offences committed by those who re-offended

Among those who re-offend, reduction in the average number of re-offences after penalty change

Watson et al. 2010

Potential influencing factors – differential effects

1.Index offence severity

2.Offence history

1. Index Offence Severity

Low-range offences: those from the lowest offence category

High-range offences: those that were 30km/hr or greater over the speed limit

Mid-range offences: all other offences

Effects of index offence severity

Compared to those with mid- and low-range offences, those with high-range index offence had a significantly:

− greater proportion re-offending;

− higher average number of offences; and

− higher average number of re-offences.

No differential effects of penalty change

2. Offence History

Low-range offenders: no speeding offences prior to index

High-range offenders: 2 or more speeding offences prior to index, where at least two were 30 km/hr or greater over the speed limit

Mid-range offenders: all other offenders

Effects of offence history Compared to mid- and low-range offenders,

high-range offenders had a significantly:

−greater proportion re-offending;

−higher average number of offences;

−fewer days until re-offence; and

−higher average number of re-offences.

No differential effects of penalty change

Potential Confounding Factors

1. Intensity of speed enforcement– Speed enforcement hours

2. Community perceptions– Annual community attitudes surveys

3. Driving exposure– Fuel sales

1. Intensity of speed enforcementSpeed

enforcementMeasure*

2001 Cohort periodMay 2001 – April 2003

2003 Cohort periodMay 2003 – April 2005

Percentage change

Hours of operation 414,699 594,093 43%

Number of offences detected

1,170,373 1,121,735 - 4%

Detection rate

2.82 1.89

* Includes all speed camera and radar based speed enforcement

2. Community perceptions The trend in self-reported exposure (self and

others) to speed cameras was stable from 1998 to 2005.

Reported awareness of penalty change: – 69% in 2003– 39% in 2004

However, knowledge of the penalty change varied in terms of accuracy.

3. Driving exposureTime period Litres sold* %change

Pre-penalty change

May 2001 – April 2003 4,515,314,862

Post-penalty change

May 2003 – April 2005 5,902,016,763 30.71%

increase

There was an increase in fuel sales from 2001-03 to 2003-05 period. As such, the results obtained in the study would not appear to be due

to any reduction in driving exposure.

*All fuel types sold by fuel retail outlets in Queensland

Speeding recidivists

Speeding recidivist profiling (1)

Examined demographic characteristics, traffic offence histories and criminal histories of speeding offenders

Compared 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 traffic offence history, prior to the index speeding offence

Examined lifetime criminal history

Watson et al. 2009


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)

Low-range5.8%

Mid-range90.5%

High-range3.7%

Breakdown of offenders(n = 84,468)

Previous profiling results (1)

• Significant differences between high-range offenders compared to low- and mid-range offenders

• Demographics - High-range offenders more likely:– Male– Younger– Hold Provisional licence– Hold Motorcycle licence

Previous profiling results (2)

Traffic History

• High-range offenders more likely than low- and mid-range offenders to have committed:– Alcohol– Unlicensed driving– Dangerous driving– Seatbelt, and– ‘Other’ traffic offences in the 5 years prior to index

offence

Crash history

Low range Mid range High range0

102030405060708090

100

3% 6.3%14%

97% 93.7%86%

CrashNo Crash

Low-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 358.6, p < .001, c= .21Mid-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 286.2, p < .001, c= .06

Compared to low- and mid-range offenders...

• High-range offenders involved in significantly greater proportion of single-vehicle crashes

• A significantly greater proportion of high-range offenders had ‘speed’ allocated as a contributing circumstance in crash

• But for multi-vehicle crashes, no significant differences between offender types for most-at-fault in a crash.

Criminal histories 1000 offenders selected

– 300 random sample of low-range– 300 random sample of mid-range– 400 random sample of high-range

Data provided by Queensland Police Service

Overall, 30.5% had at least one criminal offence– 15.9% property (eg. stealing, break and enter)– 14.9% drug offences– 10.2% offences against order (eg. public nuisance)– 7.3% offences against the person (eg. assault)– 7.2% traffic offences (ie. those requiring attendance at court)– 4.6% regulation offences (eg. prostitution, liquor licensing)

Comparison of criminal historiesLow-range offenders

Mid-range offenders

High-range offenders

Overall Criminal history 7.0% 21.0% 55.2%

Property* 38.1% 44.4% 44.3%Drug* 14.3% 36.5% 53.8%Person* 14.3% 15.9% 27.1%Traffic* 52.4% 28.6% 19.5%Order* 14.3% 28.6% 36.7%Regulation* 4.8% 3.2% 19.5%

Standardised residuals +/- 1.96 bolded*% of those with criminal history

Conclusions for recidivism research

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 into the effectiveness of speeding penalties and sanctions needed

Conclusions for recidivism research

High-range, repeat speeding offenders appear to be a problematic group of drivers

The are substantially different from low- and mid-range offenders on many demographic, traffic and criminal history factors

Need to consider innovative, tailored strategies for reducing recidivism among high-range, repeat offenders

Community attitudes & perceptions

In 2011, the Auditor-General’s Office in 2 jurisdictions (New South Wales & Victoria) conducted reviews of speed camera programs

Addressing community concern over use of cameras

NSW Auditor-General’s report (1)

“Improving Road Safety: Speed Cameras” Performance Audit Election commitment made before 2011 State Election Acknowledged much public debate 2 issues covered:

– were speed cameras located in areas identified as having greatest road safety risk?

– do speed cameras reduce speeding and the number and severity of road crashes in these locations?

Public submissions invited on how to improve speed camera program and speed management generally


Fixed cameras generally located in areas with high road safety risk

May be other locations for mobile cameras with greater road safety risk than currently used

Speed cameras change driver behaviour and have positive road safety impact overall

Results from individual cameras varied – crashes decreased at some but not others

Too early to tell impact of mobile and safety (intersection) cameras – introduced 2010 but early signs encouraging


No evidence that camera sites were chosen based on potential revenue. Site selection based on road safety

No incentives for private contractors to generate more offences (ie contractor payments do not relate to number of offences)

Traffic authority, not contractor, decides site location, roster of enforcement hours, alternative deployment sites

Not all camera locations consistent with site location criteria

Annual review needed of all camera locations as part of overarching strategy.


Need to annually monitor the effectiveness of each camera and publish trends in crashes, revenue, and speeding or infringement data for each camera

Cameras do not change behaviour of high level speeders (ie >45km/hr over the limit)

Less public concern about revenue raised by police speed enforcement (ie not cameras) yet they raise almost same amount of money


93 of 141 fixed camera locations effective with clear road safety benefits.

Noted plan to review and relocate the remaining 38 cameras

But, public ‘outrage’ at this possible removal saw some cameras retained

Current situation.... Some cameras reactivated (not issuing fines) Small number removed Ongoing stakeholder consultation to determine future of the

remaining questioned cameras

Victorian Auditor-General’s report (1)

‘Sections of the community and media have shown significant interest in the road safety camera program,

voicing concerns about whether using cameras is appropriate, the accuracy of cameras, and the validity of

infringements.

Some allege that the purpose of the road safety camera program is to raise revenue, while major faults such

as those of the Western Ring Road fixed speed cameras in 2003 and the 9 incorrect fines issued on the Hume

Freeway point-to-point cameras in 2010 have served to erode public confidence in the program’.

2011, p.vii


• The Audit examined:

– whether there is a sound rationale for the road safety camera program

– whether the cameras are sited for road safety outcomes

– the accuracy of the camera system, and– whether the public can be confident that an

infringement is valid


• The supporting technology used and camera operations systems provide high degree of confidence that infringements are issued only when clear evidence of speeding or red-light running

• Processes and controls in place provide a particularly high level of confidence in reliability and integrity of road safety camera system


• Revenue generation demonstrably not the primary purpose of camera program

• In fact, more revenue could be raised through tightening operational polices that provide for some leniency to speeding drivers

• Deployment and siting of fixed and mobile cameras based on road safety objectives


• Further revisions (eg. random deployment of mobile cameras) should strengthen current program

• Cameras cannot identify a large proportion of speeding motorcyclists

• Need to address gap in enforcement for motorcyclists


• Suggest improvements to allay public perceptions about program integrity & purpose:

– Ongoing systematic review and evaluation of fixed cameras on freeways

– Program of independent testing of mobile cameras

– Need for communication strategy and public education campaigns to specifically address widely held misconceptions of revenue raising and camera inaccuracy

– Greater attention to promote positive contribution of road safety camera program in Victoria

Speed management priorities (1)

Reduce opportunities to avoid detection and punishment by:− identifying best mix of automatic and manned enforcement

− investigating individuals who accumulate large amount of demerit points (NSW & Victoria)

− developing better detection of speeding motorcyclists

− implementing innovative strategies like point-to-point (average) enforcement which identifies persistent speeding over longer distances


Implement and evaluate innovative sanctions for reducing speeding recidivism

− vehicle impoundment− intelligent speed adaption (ISA) − behaviour change/rehabilitation programs


Innovative communication strategies needed to:

− challenge perception that speeding is okay and that everyone speeds

− address community perceptions of enforcement tolerances

− challenge perception that low level speeding is safe− encourage voluntary use of ISA (private and fleet

vehicles)− learn from success of others…

Thank you for this opportunity.Do you have any 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)

Auditor-General New South Wales. (2011). Improving Road Safety: Speed Cameras, Road and Traffic Authority - New South Wales Auditor-General’s Report.

Auditor-General Victoria (2011). Victorian Auditor-General’s Report: Road Safety Camera Program.Australian Transport Council. (2011). National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020.

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.

Fleiter, J. J., Lennon, A., & Watson, B. (2007). Choosing not to speed: A qualitative exploration of differences in perceptions about speed limit compliance and related issues. Paper presented at the Australasian Road Safety Research Policing Education Conference, Melbourne, 17-19 October, Melbourne.

Fleiter, J. J., Lennon, A., & Watson, B. (2010). How do other people influence your driving speed? Exploring the 'who' and the 'how' of social influences on speeding from a qualitative perspective. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 13, 49-62.

References (2)

Newstead, S. (2006). Evaluation of the crash effects of the Queensland speed camera program in the year 2005. Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre.

Petroulias, T. (2011). Community Attitudes to Road Safety – 2011 Survey Report. In Department of Infrastructure and Transport (Ed.). Canberra.

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.

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.

World Health Organization (2004) World report on road traffic injury prevention. Geneva.

Repeat speeding offenders – Results from research in Queensland, Australia Dr Judy Fleiter

Documents

Transcript of Repeat speeding offenders – Results from research in Queensland, Australia Dr Judy Fleiter