Successes and challenges in managing illegal road user behaviours Barry Watson CRICOS No. 00213J...

Successes and challenges in managing illegal road user behaviours

Barry Watson

CRICOS No. 00213J

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.

Edmonton’s International Conference on Urban Traffic

Safety, 17-21 April 2011

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

90% road user error

30% road conditions

10% vehicular defect or failure

Source: Shinar, 1978

Road user error

Roadconditions

Vehicular defect

Contributing factors to crashes in Queensland: 2007

FactorFatal 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%

Other 243 71.9% 20663 90.5%

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

6

Australia:

Population = 22.5 million

Queensland:

Population = 4.5 millionLand area = 1.7 million km2

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

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)

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 20060

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

4442

40

3739

40

3735

34 3432

2829

2830

2928

2627

2425

28 2826

29 29

%

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)

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

2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

50484744

47453938

34313133

28313335

27262528

2525

33

2528

3231

Year

%

Source: Queensland Transport

Major reductions have occurred over time, but not in a continuous manner

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

Source: Watson et al, 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.

Alcohol-related fatalities in Queensland: 1978-1994

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’ operationsSourced from police and media in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria

Effectiveness of RBT Evaluations suggest that RBT has produced long-

term 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

1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20080

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

61 62

6770 70 70 71 70

74 7578

7674 75

2017

20

25 26 26 26 2527

30 2932

28 27

Seen RBT

Been tested

Source: Pennay, 2008

%

Year

Alcohol impaired driving:

Challenges for achieving further reductions

The dynamic nature of deterrence

Homel’s (1986) “Hole in the Bucket Model” of RBT

“... 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 (1)


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)


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 historySource: Mayhew, Simpson & Bierness, 1997


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


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 - 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 and trialing of point-to-point (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 2kmSource: Newstead, 2006; Cameron, 2008; Carnis, Rakotonirainy & Fleiter, 2008

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

%

Source: Queensland TMR, 2011, p.5

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 deterrence) Source: Watson et al. (2010)

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 changesTable 1. Speeding offences and penalties in Qld prior to 17 April, 2003

Table 2. 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

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 re-

offending

- Marginal specific deterrence – a reduction in re-offending

Measures of recidivism

In the follow up period:

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

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

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

CRICOS No. 00213J

1. Proportion of re-offending(among all offenders)

Proportion of 2001 cohort who re-offended within

2 years

Proportion of 2003 cohort who re-offended within

2 years

55.7% 45.1% p < .001, =.03

2. Delay to re-offence (among re-offenders)

2001 cohort 2003 cohort

Mean days to re-offence 313 days 285 days p < .001, = .05

SD 204 198

Range 1 – 730days

1 – 730days

2001 cohort 2003 cohort

Mean days to re-offence

2.94 3.00 ns

SD 1.62 1.79

Range 2 – 55 offences

2 – 58 offences

3. Average number of re-offences(among re-offenders)

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

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)

Low-range5.8%

Mid-range90.5%

High-range3.7%

Breakdown of offenders(n = 84,468)

Low-range Mid-range High-range

50.5%

65.1%

90.2%

49.5%

34.9%

9.8%

Male

Female

Low-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 1333.7, p < .001, c= .41Mid-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 840.4, p < .001, c= .10

Gender of offenders


9.4%17.2%

40.5% 17 - 2425 - 2930 - 3940 - 4950 - 5960+


Age of offenders


3.4% 4.1% 6.1%4.9% 9.4%

29.1%

91.7%86.5%

64.8%

Learner

Provisional

Open


Offenders’ licence status


70.4%64.8%

54.6%

18.5% 24.1%

38.5% Car only

Motorcycle

HV only

Car + HV


Offenders’ licence class


1.4% 4.3%11.4%

98.6% 95.7%88.6%

Yes No


Drink driving offence history


0.0% 0.8% 3.4%

100.0% 99.2% 96.6%

Yes No


Dangerous driving offence history


0.0% 1.4%8.3%

100.0% 98.6%91.7%

Yes No


Unlicensed driving offence history


0.0% 3.4%9.0%

100.0% 96.6%91.0%

Yes No


Seat belt offence history


0.0%

13.6%

36.5%

100.0%

86.4%

63.5%

Yes No


Other offence history

Implications for road safety Logistic regression analyses confirmed that high-

range, 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)

Source: Fleiter & Watson, 2007

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

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

CRICOS No. 00213J

Source: Watson, 2004a,b

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

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080

2

4

6

8

10

12

% U

nlic

ense

d

Year

Source: Queensland Road Crash Database, TMR

Unlicensed driving:

Challenges for reducing the prevalence of the

behaviour


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


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-to-point 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

[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.

Successes and challenges in managing illegal road user behaviours Barry Watson CRICOS No. 00213J...

Documents

Transcript of Successes and challenges in managing illegal road user behaviours Barry Watson CRICOS No. 00213J...