Innovative theoretical perspectives for young driver enforcement - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Innovative theoretical perspectives for young driver enforcement Dr Lyndel Bates Griffith Criminology Institute

Young drivers and violations  Provisional drivers have low compliance with road laws  Their compliance decreases as they gain driving experience (Bates, Darvell & Watson, 2017; Scott-Parker, Watson, King & Hyde, 2012) One Californian study identified that 55% of young drivers have a traffic  conviction within the first three years of driving (Chapman, Masten & Browning, 2014)  As young drivers’ confidence and perceived skill increases, so do violations (McKenna, 2018)

Traditional Deterrence Theory Certainty Deterrence Severity Swiftness

Deterrence theory and drink driving  Random breath testing a good example of general deterrence  RBT often accompanied by media campaigns Since RBT introduced   Alcohol-related crashes have decreased  Increase in number of people who disapprove of drink driving  Australians support RBT programs (Ferris, Mazerolle, King, Bates, Bennett & Devaney, 2013; Freeman & Watson, 2009; Watson & Freeman, 2007)

Deterrence theory and young drivers Study 1   Informal deterrence is more important than formal deterrence in predicting compliance  Shame was an important mediator (Allen, Murphy & Bates, 2017)  Study 2  Parental enforcement important for transient offences  ‘Emboldening effect’ from previously being exposed to enforcement (Bates, Darvell & Watson, 2017)

Procedural Justice Citizen Trustworthy Dignity and Neutrality participation motives respect Procedural justice Citizens’ view police and their authority as legitimate Obey the law and trust police More willing to Participate in crime Comply with Cooperate with Assist police by accept outcomes prevention directives police reporting crime activities (eg. fines)

Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET)  Drivers in the procedurally just interaction:  1.24 times more likely to report views on drinking and driving changed  Higher levels of satisfaction with police  Higher levels of compliance (Mazerolle, Bennett, Antrobus & Eggins, 2012) Procedurally just interaction took longer   Appears 1 minute and 50 second interaction optimal (Mazerolle, Bates, Bennett, White, Ferris, Antrobus, 2015)

Procedural justice and young drivers  Focused on two types of speed enforcement  Point-to-point speed cameras  Mobile speed cameras  Perceptions of procedural justice for point-to-point cameras affected self- reported speeding behaviour  Only neutrality associated with both camera types (Bates, Allen & Watson, 2016)

Third-Party Policing Key Concept 1: Use their Resources Key Concept 2: May need Coercion (Mazerolle, Higginson, & Eggins, 2016)

Work to date 1. Interviews with parents in Queensland 2. Interviews with dyads in the ACT 3. Survey with parents & children in the ACT & Qld

Findings  Parents have an incomplete knowledge of the P-plate restrictions  Trust their young driver knows the rule  Interviews suggest parents impose complimentary restrictions  Survey suggests less than 15% impose additional rules

Findings (cont)  Parents more likely to believe that their child complied if they lived at home and were high in control  Parents more likely to impose restrictions if they were high in control  Parents teach values associated with safe driving, and believe it is the parents role to police this  Parents use a range of strategies to encourage safe driving

What does this mean for Third Party Policing?  Parents  Willing to be involved  Able to use resources (ie. emotions and knowledge of individual factors) not available to police THEREFORE appear to have potential to be a ‘third party’

BUT Is the legal lever strong enough?

Partnership Policing Partnership Public Police Target Population Partners Influence General Police Response

Partnership Policing (young drivers) Partnership Public Police Young Drivers Parents Influence General Police Response

Implications – Deterrence theory  Initiatives based on deterrence principles (e.g. RBT) are effective  Can’t assume that deterrence theory is the right theoretical basis for all interventions

Implications – Procedural justice  A single interaction with police can impact on drivers’ perceptions  Police should be conscious of their manner Police need to be fair in road policing interactions   Must be genuine and not impression management

Implications – Third party policing  Emerging area in road safety  Exploratory study suggests there may be potential Are we looking at partnership policing? 

Young driver road policing framework Is it possible to combine Deterrence theory   Procedural justice Third party policing/Partnership policing 

YOU could answer this question…  Focus on a group of more consistent offenders known as ‘young problem drivers’ 3 year full time scholarship   $27,082 per annum https://www.griffith.edu.au/research- study/scholarships/criminology-and-criminal-justice

References Allen, S., Murphy, K., & Bates, L. (2017). What drives compliance? The effect of deterrence and shame emotions on young drivers’ compliance with road laws. Policing and Society, 27 (8), 884-898. doi:10.1080/10439463.2015.1115502 Bates, L., Allen, S., & Watson, B. (2016). The influence of the elements of procedural justice and speed camera enforcement on young novice driver self- reported speeding. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 92 , 34-42. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.03.023 Bates, L., Darvell, M., & Watson, B. (2017). Young and unaffected by road policing strategies: Using deterrence theory to explain provisional drivers’ (non)compliance. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 50 (1), 23-38. doi:10.1177/0004865815589824 Chapman, E. A., Masten, S. V., & Browning, K. (2014). Crash and traffic violation rates before and after licensure for novice California drivers subject to different driver licensing requirements. Journal of Safety Research, 50 , 125–138. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2014.05.005 Ferris, J., Mazerolle, L., King, M., Bates, L., Bennett, S., & Devaney, M. (2013). Random breath testing in Queensland and Western Australia: Examination of how the random breath testing rate influences alcohol related traffic crash rates. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 60 , 181– 188. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.08.018 Freeman, J., & Watson, B. (2009). Drink driving deterrents and self-reported offending behaviours among a sample of Queensland motorists. Journal of Safety Research, 40 , 113-120. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2008.12.009 Mazerolle, L., Bates, L., Bennett, S., White, G., Ferris, J., & Antrobus, E. (2015). Optimising the length of random breath tests: Results from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48 (2), 256-276. doi:10.1177/0004865814532661 Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8 , 343-367. doi:10.1007/s11292-012-9160-1 Mazerolle, L., Higginson, A., & Eggins, E. (2016). Protocol: Third party policing for reducing crime and disorder: A systematic review. In Campbell Systematic Reviews . McKenna, F. (2018). Do low levels of confidence suppress the tendency to violate? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 55 , 136-140. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.004 Scott-Parker, B., Watson, B., King, M., & Hyde, M. (2012). Young, inexperienced and on the road: do novice drivers comply with road rules? Transportation Research Record, 2318 , 98-106. Watson, B., & Freeman, J. (2007). Perceptions and experiences of random breath testing in Queensland and the self-reported deterrent impact on drunk driving. Traffic Injury Prevention, 8 (1), 11-19. doi:10.1080/15389580601027360

l.bates@griffith.edu.au