Traffic Safety Culture in Australia: Contrasting Community Perceptions to Drink Driving & Speeding

Presented by Mark King

Based on material developed by Barry Watson & David Soole

TZD Strategic Visioning Workshop

April 2-3, 2013

University of Minnesota

Queensland

NSW

Victoria

South

Australia

Tasmania

Northern

Territory

Western

Australia Brisbane

Sydney

Canberra

Hobart

Melbourne

Darwin

Adelaide

Perth

ACT Land area: 2.96m sq miles (USA 3.53m)

Population: 22.3m (USA 316.7m)

Outline

The role of traffic safety culture in Australia

A comparison of drink driving (a success story) and speeding (a work in progress)

―Countermeasure approaches

―Community attitudes, perceptions and behaviors

Lessons from Australia for the further development of the traffic safety culture concept

Traffic Safety Culture in Australia [1]

Traffic safety culture (TSC) is an under-utilized concept in the Australian context

Why TSC has failed to gain traction in Australia is unclear, but may reflect:

―Lack of robust theoretical model to guide TSC

―Strong reliance on marketing-driven public education

Nonetheless, Australia is often seen as having a more positive TSC compared to the USA

Traffic Safety Culture in Australia [2]

(Adapted from Ward et al., 2010)

Individual Relationships Community Societal

Structure of government and institutional arrangements (e.g. Parliamentary committees)

Less emphasis on private industry

Willingness for government intervention

Government support for evidence-based policies

Preparedness of government to consult the community

Norms-based public education (e.g., peer targeted messages, such as designated drivers)

Enforcement

Engineering

Road-user focused public education (e.g., awareness, reinforcing)

(Adapted from Williams & Haworth, 2007)

Traffic Safety Culture in Australia [3]

Many of the broad sociopolitical factors influencing TSC are historically based and difficult to change

Some institutional factors may be open to influence by the traffic safety community in medium/ long-term (e.g., establishment of Parliamentary committees and community consultation processes)

The area where traffic safety community has the greatest potential to directly influence TSC is through advocating for: ― General deterrence focused enforcement to target high-risk behaviors,

supported by conventional public education

― Transformative public education designed to encourage behavior change at the societal level

Case Study 1: Drink Driving in Australia

Percentage of drivers and riders killed with BAC of .05 or more in Queensland: 1980-2011 (where BAC is known)

Year

%

(Source: TMR)

Random Breath Testing (RBT) [1]

Primary drink driving enforcement tool

Conducted in highly visible, intensive manner to act as a general deterrent

Underpinned by deterrence theory

Some states conduct the equivalent of one breath test per licensed driver per year

Evaluations suggest RBT has produced long-term reductions in alcohol-related crashes

Public support for RBT is extremely high (98%)

(Homel, 1988; Henstridge et al, 1994; Hart et al, 2004; Petroulias, 2011; Watson, 2004; Watson et al, 1994)

RBT ‘booze bus’ and car operations

(Source: Police/media in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria)

Random Breath Testing (RBT) [2]

Random Breath Testing (RBT)[3]

Exposure to RBT activity in previous 6 months, 1993-2011

(Source: Petroulias, 2011)

Drink Driving Education/Media Campaigns

RBT has historically been supported by high profile education/media campaigns

Two main approaches adopted:

– Reinforcing = reinforce purpose of enforcement (e.g., deterrence, likelihood of detection, road safety goal), educate about enforcement practices

– Transformative = attempt to change cultural attitudes and beliefs about offending behavior, increase moral attachment to the law

Example of a “Reinforcing” Message

Examples of “Transformative” Messages [1]

Examples of a “Transformative” Message [2]

Drink Driving Attitudes [1]

Over the last three decades, drink driving attitudes have undergone a dramatic positive shift

– Perceived as a risky behavior

– Socially unacceptable

Generally attributed to introduction of RBT and associated media/education

– But changes in general community values towards alcohol may have played a role

Drink Driving Attitudes [2]

2012 2011 2010 2009 2008

People who drink and drive are irresponsible 89% 92% 96% 96% 98%

I plan ahead to avoid drink driving 82% 83% 84% 86% 85%

If driving, I never drink enough to exceed legal BAC limit 74% 73% 73% 81% 79%

There is a likelihood I’ll crash if I drink drive 72% 72% 70% 75% 77%

I am likely to be caught by police if I drink drive 70% 68% 67% 70% 70%

The penalties for drink driving aren’t harsh enough 67% 64% 76% 75% 67%

I don’t drink drive because I’d be embarrassed if caught 69% 61% 64% 63% 75%

I sometimes drink drive when I could be over the limit 16% 13% 11% 14% 19%

(Adapted from TMR, 2012a)

QLD drivers agreement with selected drink driving attitude statements 2008-2012

Where to From Here?

Challenges still exist:

– The reduction in alcohol-related fatalities appears to have plateaued

– Over the last two decades, alcohol has become more readily available and binge drinking has increased

Resulting in a countervailing influence to our traffic safety efforts

– Need to address the broader societal role that alcohol plays in Australian culture and way of life

Case Study 2: Speeding in Australia

Speeding in Australia

Countermeasures:

– Automated (fixed, mobile, average speed cameras) and manual approaches (moving-mode radar, hand-held laser)

Focus on both general and specific deterrence

Evaluations suggest cameras reduce crashes

Speed enforcement supported by extensive education/media campaigns

– Reinforcing and transformative (Wilson et al., 2010)

Example of a “Reinforcing” Message

Examples of “Transformative” Message [1]

Example of a “Transformative” Message [2]

Proportion of fatalities that were speed-related in QLD, 2006-2012

(Source: TMR, 2012b)

29

24 24 24

16

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

Pro

po

rtio

n

Year

Attitudes Toward Speed Enforcement

Percentage of the community who think speed enforcement should increase, decrease or stay the same, 2005-2011

(Pennay, 2006a; 2006b; 2008; Petroulias, 2009; 2011)

Year Increase Decrease Stay the same

2011 35% 12% 50%

2009 46% 6% 46%

2008 46% 10% 42%

2006 44% 11% 44%

2005 42% 10% 47%

Some resistance to change apparent in community attitudes to speeding and related enforcement

Attitudes Toward Speeding

2011 2009 2008 2006 2005

Speed limits are generally reasonable 81% 84% 84% 83% 83%

A crash at 70km/h will be more severe than at 60km/h

92% 92% 93% 94% 94%

You are more likely to be involved in a crash if you increase your speed by 10km/h

70% 75% 71% 74% 72%

Speeding fines are mainly intended to raise revenue 62% 58% 55% 59% 56%

It is OK to speed if you are driving safely 28% 25% 28% 26% 27%

(Adapted from Petroulias, 2011)

Selected general attitudes toward speeding in Australia, 2005-2011

Why is Speeding Different to Drink Driving?

Recent research at CARRS-Q highlights: – Speed paradox – many people with anti-speeding attitudes reporting

doing so on occasions

– Due to the transient nature of speeding, drivers feel they have more control over it

– Lower perception of risk/detection for speeders

– Lower perceived legitimacy for speed enforcement

Revenue raising versus traffic safety

– Broader culture of support for speeding – or at least mixed messages (e.g. enforcement tolerances, pro-speeding advertising and social media)

– Speeding is more social acceptable than drink driving

– Exceeding the speed limit (even if only by a small amount) is the normative behavior

(Fleiter, 2010; Fleiter & Watson, 2005; Livingstone, 2011; Soole, 2013)

Lessons for TSC from Australia [1]

A positive shift in TSC appears to have occurred in Australia in relation to drink driving

However, it is unclear whether this was primarily due to:

– the indirect influence of the intensive enforcement and public education, which through its deterrent effect altered community-wide attitudes and norms towards the behaviour

– the direct influence of the transformative public education

– Other societal-level factors

This highlights the need for a more robust theoretical model of TSC, to explain the change process and identify strategies for the future

Lessons for TSC from Australia [2]

While some general factors have undoubtedly contributed to a more positive TSC in Australia, aspects of our success appear to be behavior-specific

– the ‘formula’ used for drink driving does not appear to be transferring as well to speeding (or distracted driving)

– the spill-over effects of TSC improvements from one behaviour to another may be limited, and dependent on other factors

Hence, a robust theoretical model needs to explain both general and behaviour-specific aspects of TSC

Lessons for TSC from Australia [3]

A holistic approach to TSC improvement is required which:

– focuses on both facilitating and impeding factors (eg. while many Australian’s appear to accept that speeding is dangerous, they also believe that enforcement efforts lack legitimacy)

– accounts for the complex interplay between societal, community and immediate social influences, which may vary across different groups (sub-cultures) and behaviours eg. CARRS-Q research suggests that the influence of immediate social groups is particularly strong for more ‘deviant’ behaviours

Lessons from TSC for Australia [4]

(Adapted from Ward et al., 2010)

When an unsafe behavior is committed by a minority (e.g., drink driving), efforts to influence TSC should be more strongly targeted at the individual and the sub-cultural groups

Individual Relationships Community Societal

Lessons from TSC for Australia [5]

(Adapted from Ward et al., 2010)

When unsafe behavior is committed by the majority (or sizable minority; e.g., speeding), efforts to influence TSC should be targeted at all levels

Individual Relationships Community Societal

Conclusion

While Australia is often identified as having a relatively positive TSC, our success is:

– more apparent in the area of drink driving (and seat belt use) than other behaviours like speeding and distracted driving

– characterized by the combined use of intensive and community-wide enforcement and public education

– probably due in part to historical and socio-political factors, difficult to modify in the short to medium term

– not informed by sound theory (in contrast to our enforcement efforts)

Further development and application of the TSC concept is required for ongoing improvements

Questions?

mark.king@qut.edu.au

Mark your Diaries!

International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference (T2013)

25-28 August 2013, Brisbane

www.t2013.com

20th International Council on Alcohol, Drugs & Traffic Safety Conference

References

Fleiter, J. (2010). Examining Psychosocial Influences on Speeding in Australian and Chinese Contexts : A Social Learning Approach. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology.

Fleiter, J. & Watson, B. (2005). The speed paradox : the misalignment between driver attitudes and speeding behaviour. Paper presented at the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.

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 & Traffic Authority.

Hedlund, J. (2007). Improving Traffic Safety Culture in the United States: The Journey Forward – Summary and Synthesis. Washington DC: AAAFTS.

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. (1988). Policing and Punishing the Drinking Driver: A Study of Specific and General Deterrence. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Livingstone, K. (2011). A Comparison of the Psychological, Social, and Legal Factors Contributing to Speeding and Drink Driving Behaviour. Masters by Research thesis, Queensland University of Technology.

Pennay, D. (2008). Community Attitudes to Road Safety – 2008 Survey Report. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure & Transport.

Pennay, D. (2006a). Community Attitudes to Road Safety – Wave 19, 2006. Canberra: Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

Pennay, D. (2006b). Community Attitudes to Road Safety – Wave 18, 2005. Canberra: Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

Petroulias, T. (2011). Community Attitudes to Road Safety – 2011 Survey Report. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure & Transport.

Petroulias, T. (2009). Community Attitudes to Road Safety – 2009 Survey Report. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure & Transport.

Soole, David William (2012) The Relationship Between Drivers’ Perceptions Toward Police Speed Enforcement and Self-Reported Speeding Behaviour. Masters by Research thesis, Queensland University of Technology.

References

Transport and Main Roads Queensland (TMR). (2012a) RSPAT Survey – Report A: Speed, Alcohol, Drugs, Risky Behaviours. Brisbane: Market and Communications Research.

Transport and Main Roads Queensland (TMR). (2012b) Queensland Road Toll, Weekly Report (Report Number 778). Brisbane: TMR.

Ward, N.J., Linkenbach, J., Keller, S.N. & Otto, J. (2010). White Paper on Traffic Safety Culture. Montana: Western Transportation Institute , College of Engineering Montana State University.

Watson, B. (2004). The Psychosocial Characteristics and On-Road Behaviour of Unlicensed Drivers. Unpublished Doctorial Thesis. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

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.

Williams, A.F. & Haworth, N. (2007). Overcoming barriers to creating a well-functioning safety culture: A comparison of Australia and the United States. In AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2007. Improving Traffic Safety Culture in the United States: The Journey Forward. Washington DC: AAAFTS.

Wilson, C., Willis, C., Hendrikz, J.K., Le Brocque, R. & Bellamy, N. (2010). Speed Cameras for the Prevention of Road Traffic Injuries and Deaths. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 10.