Repeat speeding offenders from an Australian perspective Dr Judy Fleiter
description
Transcript of Repeat speeding offenders from an Australian perspective Dr Judy Fleiter
Repeat speeding offenders from an Australian perspective
Dr Judy Fleiter
CRICOS No. 00213J
Road Safety Network:CIHR Team inTransdisciplinary Studies in DWI Onset, Persistence, Prevention and
Treatment, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal
2 August 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 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
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
30-44 km/hr over speed limit $180 4
>44 km/hr over speed limit $255 6
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
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 changes: – 69% in 2003 (year of change)– 39% in 2004
However, knowledge of the penalty changes 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
Speeding recidivist profiling (2)
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
Speeding recidivist profiling (3)
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)
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
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
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 an 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
They 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
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
Speed management priorities (2)
Implement and evaluate innovative sanctions for reducing speeding recidivism
− vehicle impoundment− intelligent speed adaption (ISA) − behaviour change/rehabilitation programs
Speed management priorities (3)
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…
Fleiter & Watson, 2012
Merci.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Do you have any questions?
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)
Fleiter, J. & Watson, B. (2012). Automated speed enforcement in Australia: Recent examples of the influence of public opinion on program sustainability, Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, August Edition.
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.