1. 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

2. 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

3. Overview  Speeding and crash involvement in Australia  Speeding recidivist research in Queensland  Implications for future speed management

4. Australia Brisbane Australia = 22.8 million people Queensland = 4.5 million people Land area = 1.7 million km 2 Driver’s licences = 3.1 million Reg.vehicles = 4.3 million

5. Australian Road Deaths: Improvements from 1970-2010 30.4 deaths/100,000 people6.1 deaths/100,000 people With a 2-fold increase in vehicles & 50% growth in population

6. Improvements in Road Safety in Queensland since 1967

7. 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)

8. 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

9. Focus of Traffic Policing The Fatal 4 –Speeding –Drink driving –Fatigue – driving while tired –Non-use of Seatbelts

11. CRICOS No. 00213J Percentage of fatalities involving speeding drivers/riders in Queensland: 12 months ending January 2006 -2011 Year % Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011

12. Percentage of speeding infringements per penalty category, Queensland Km/hour above the speed limit % of infringements Queensland Transport, 2008

13. 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?

14. 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

15. Speeding penalty changes Speeding offences and penalties in Qld prior to 17 April, 2003 Speeding offences and penalties in Qld from 17 April, 2003 OffenceFineDemerit Points <15 km/hr over speed limit$901 15-29 km/hr over speed limit$1353 30-44 km/hr over speed limit$1804 >44 km/hr over speed limit$2556 OffenceFineDemerit Points <13 km/hr over speed limit$1001 13-20 km/hr over speed limit$1503 21-29 km/hr over speed limit$2504 30-40 km/hr over speed limit$3006 >40 km/hr over speed limit$7008 + 6 months suspension

16. 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

17. Speeding recidivism research  Our research aimed to:  examine the specific deterrent impact of the changes  profile speeding offenders/recidivists

18. 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

19. 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

20. Measures of recidivism In 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

21. Overall impact of penalty change Measure of recidivismHypothesesOutcome 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

22. Potential influencing factors – differential effects 1.Index offence severity 2.Offence history

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. Potential Confounding Factors 1.Intensity of speed enforcement –Speed enforcement hours 2. Community perceptions –Annual community attitudes surveys 3. Driving exposure –Fuel sales

28. 1. Intensity of speed enforcement Speed enforcement Measure* 2001 Cohort period May 2001 – April 2003 2003 Cohort period May 2003 – April 2005 Percentage change Hours of operation 414,699594,09343% Number of offences detected 1,170,3731,121,735- 4% Detection rate 2.821.89 * Includes all speed camera and radar based speed enforcement

29. 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.

30. 3. Driving exposure Time periodLitres sold*%change Pre-penalty change May 2001 – April 20034,515,314,862 Post-penalty change May 2003 – April 20055,902,016,763 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

31. Speeding recidivists

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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)

36. 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

37. 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

38. Crash history Low-range vs. high-range:  2 (1) = 358.6, p <.001,  c =.21 Mid-range vs. high-range:  2 (1) = 286.2, p <.001,  c =.06

39. 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)

40. Comparison of criminal histories Low-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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. Speed management priorities (2)  Implement and evaluate innovative sanctions for reducing speeding recidivism −vehicle impoundment −intelligent speed adaption (ISA) −behaviour change/rehabilitation programs

45. 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

46. Merci. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Do you have any questions? j.fleiter@qut.edu.au Mark your Diaries! International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference (ICADTS T2013) August 2013, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre

47. 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.

48. 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.