Examining the impact of both legal and nonlegal factors on following a vehicle too closely utilizing three deterrence-based theories

Abstract

Following a vehicle too closely (otherwise known as tailgating) is a high-risk behavior and major contributor to motor-vehicle collisions and injuries. Both legal and nonlegal countermeasures are currently in place in an attempt to prevent this behavior, yet there has been limited research that has examined the effectiveness of both legal and nonlegal factors on engagement in the behavior. Therefore, this research utilized a combination of the three most salient deterrence-based theories used in road safety to understand the impact of both legal and nonlegal sanctions on following a vehicle too closely. A survey was completed by 887 Queensland drivers aged 17–84 years ( Mage = 49 years; 55% males). Variables from Classical Deterrence Theory, the reconceptualized deterrence theory and the extended deterrence-based model (that includes perceived internal loss, physical loss, and social sanctions), as well as measures of following a vehicle too closely were used. The majority of the sample (98%) reported following a vehicle too closely at some point, with the average frequency ranging from rarely to sometimes. Significant predictors of more frequent unsafe following distances included: being male, younger in age, and avoiding punishment for the behavior. Meanwhile, significant predictors of less frequent unsafe following distances included knowing others who have been punished for the behavior, as well as fearing the physical and internal losses resulting from unsafe following distances. Notably, the severity of the punishment was also a significant deterrent, while the perceived certainty of being apprehended for the offence was low and did not impact engagement in behavior. These results have a number of important implications on how to maximize both legal and nonlegal countermeasures to further prevent following a vehicle too closely.

Influencing Driver Offending Behavior: Using an Integrated Deterrence-based Model

“…Consistent with previous research, perceived swiftness of punishment failed to deter drivers in the case of drug driving (Davey et al, 2008), drink driving (Szogi et al, 2017), and speeding (Truelove et al, 2017). In addition, the extended timeframe between getting caught and appearing in court for drink driving and drug driving could delay the consequences of illegal behavior and thus, weaken the swiftness effect (Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001). Similarly, speeding and being detected by a speed camera takes time until the offender receives the fine or feels its financial effects.…”

“…The lack of longitudinal data deprived us form addressing the temporal ordering of variables in terms of the offending driving behaviors and the outcome of sanctioning experiences and how the formulation of perceptions changes over time. However, previous research investigated deterrence in the road safety domain measured offending behavior on a scale ranging from “never” to “all the time” (Ochenasek et al, 2022; Szogi et al, 2017; Truelove et al, 2017). Despite this, we acknowledge that the cross-sectional data used in this study neglected the number of prior experiences, the nature, the timing and the recency of past behaviors.…”

Road rule enforcement and where to find it: An investigation of applications used to avoid detection when violating traffic rules

“…Overall, this study identifies the large prevalence of these applications that display traffic enforcement locations and the wide range of ways in which they have the potential to be used to avoid being caught and punished for committing a traffic offense. This is alarming if the applications enable more people to avoid being caught and punished for traffic violations, since punishment avoidance has consistently been demonstrated to be one of the most salient predictors of continued engagement in offending behaviors (Fleiter & Barry, 2005;Ochenasek et al, 2021;Szogi et al, 2017;Truelove et al, 2019).…”

“…Alternatively, the use of the applications may instead decrease perceptions of apprehension certainty by increasing perceptions that they can avoid being detected and subsequently punished for the offense (Stafford & Warr, 1993). Previous road safety literature has demonstrated that punishment avoidance is a leading predictor of continued engagement in offending behavior (e.g., Fleiter & Barry, 2005;Ochenasek et al, 2021;Szogi et al, 2017;Truelove et al, 2019). The way in which drivers may avoid being caught for a traffic offense can depend on whether they are violating a transient or fixed rule.…”