Past behaviours and future intentions: An examination of perceptual deterrence and alcohol consumption upon a range of drink driving events

Freeman, James E.; Parkes, Alexander; Lewis, Naomi; Davey, Jeremy D.; Armstrong, Kerry; Truelove, Verity

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2019.105428

Cited by 29 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonlegal deterrence items were based on previous research (Freeman et al, 2020; Homel, 1988). All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The perceived certainty of apprehension (i.e., the seeming threat of detection or punishment) has been recognized as the most important component of Classical Deterrence Theory, followed by the perceived severity of the punishment (i.e., fear of incurring a fine and demerit points 1 ) (Piquero et al, 2011). In road safety research, the perceived swiftness of punishment is consistently a nonsignificant predictor, most likely due to the delay between engaging in the behavior and being caught (e.g., Freeman et al, 2020; Freeman et al, 2021). Research has yet to apply deterrence theory to the behavior of following a vehicle too closely.…”

Section: Deterrence Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Ochenasek

Truelove

Stefanidis

et al. 2021

Journal of Criminology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Deterrence Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ochenasek

Truelove

Stefanidis

et al. 2021

Journal of Criminology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The theory of Deterrence proposes that there are several components to the perceptions of penalties, such as the perceived certainty of apprehension, perceived severity of punishment, and perceived swiftness of punishment [1,[21][22][23]. But the present study focuses only on the perceived severity, as this has been found to be the strongest indicator of the perceived justice of traffic law enforcement [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Differences in the perceived justice of penalties for road traffic offences between Lithuanian offenders and non-offenders

Endriulaitienė

Slavinskienė²,

Šeibokaitė³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most countries around the world use the penalties’ system in order to increase compliance with road traffic rules. However, it can be argued that the most penalties’ systems are ineffective, as drivers do not change offending behavior due to received penalty and repeatedly violate them. The perceived fairness of these penalties may be related to the level of adherence to these traffic rules. Therefore, this research explored the perceived justice of penalties for road traffic rules in a sample of Lithuanian drivers and investigated the differences between offenders and non-offenders. The sample consisted of 358 participants (63.4 percent females, aged 18–75, mean age 35.2 years) who completed an online survey. Participants were asked to report how fair they believed penalties were for road traffic rule offences in general and using a list of 23 specific penalties, including: drink driving, speeding, dangerous maneuverings, illegal overtaking, handheld phone use while driving, etc. The survey measured demographic data, as well as data regarding driving exposure, traffic offences and crashes during the last 12 months. The results revealed that in general drivers perceived the penalties as fair or adequate. The answer “adequate/fair” was chosen most frequently for almost all penalties (from 41.1 to 71.3 percent), with only the penalty for carrying a child without a car seat (€30–50) being perceived as too mild (55.5%). Gender differences were found in the evaluation of the penalty for driving under the influence of alcohol, while age and driving frequency differences were found in the perceived fairness of the penalties for not using a seatbelt, aberrant driving and using a handheld mobile phone while driving. Drivers who reported no offences during the last year, perceived the penalties for speeding as being too mild, when compared to drivers with at least one penalty over the previous year. Contrarily, offenders reported the penalties for speeding as being too severe. Offenders, who experienced driving license suspension, perceived the penalties as being too severe for drink driving and aberrant driving than offenders who received monetary fines. In summary, both Lithuanian offenders and non-offenders generally perceived the penalties for traffic rule offences as adequate and fair, but individual differences and the experience of traffic sanctions were related to the perceived justice of specific penalties.

show abstract

“…In terms of road accidents, the six relevant factors identified include basic control, general driving, traffic conditions, roadway characteristics, environment, and vehicle type. Olson and Dewar [7] has mentioned considering human factors, drivers' perceptions and responses are relevant, such as where they are looking and for how long, different kinds of personal data, emotions, pressure, aggression [14][15][16][17][18][19][20], motivation [21], driving skills, risky behaviors [20,22], social variables [22,23], driver attitudes [24,25], gender differences [14,26,27], driving experience, tiredness, alcohol consumption [28,29], drunk driving behavior [30], age differences (i.e., teen, adult, or senior) [14,27,31,32], and other physical characteristics also constitute human factors that can lead to accidents. Accidents also happen due to co-factors between the driver and the vehicle, or humans and the environment, such as roads, and so forth [7].…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Applying multilevel analysis and the Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ) on unsafe actions under a road safety policy

Jomnonkwao

Uttra²,

Khampirat³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of this research are: to investigate and develop a multilevel analysis of unsafe actions or risky behaviors; to study the influence of road safety policy factors on risky behaviors; and to analyze personal characteristics that influence risky behaviors. Data were collected using 1,474 samples from locations countrywide at the district level, including 76 clusters, via the Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ) and road safety policy. The results indicate that, for the district-level model, the participation factor directly and negatively influenced risky behaviors, and government support indirectly had a negative impact through participation. Thus, people’s participation in the area caused a decrease in unsafe behaviors. Meanwhile, safety policy support in the area partially caused people to participate at a significant level. At the personal level, income, having a driver’s license, past violations, and past accidents significantly affected risky behaviors, especially having a driver’s license, which had a negative influence. This meant that people who had a driver’s license facilitated a positive effect in terms of decreasing risky behaviors, while people with past violations and past accidents influenced this situation positively. The more traffic law violations and accidents the participants had, the more they engaged in unsafe actions. Based on the findings, acknowledging and solving the problem of unsafe driving at a spatial level can address the issue by supporting different measures to help people in the area improve the situation. In addition, we should assist people who have a driver’s license by offering them useful training to decrease traffic law violations and inform them about accidents.

show abstract

Past behaviours and future intentions: An examination of perceptual deterrence and alcohol consumption upon a range of drink driving events

Cited by 29 publications

References 36 publications

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

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

Differences in the perceived justice of penalties for road traffic offences between Lithuanian offenders and non-offenders

Applying multilevel analysis and the Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ) on unsafe actions under a road safety policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About