Young and unaffected by road policing strategies: Using deterrence theory to explain provisional drivers’ (non)compliance
| Author | Lyndel Bates,Barry Watson,Millie J Darvell |
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865815589824 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2017, Vol. 50(1) 23–38
Young and unaffected by road
! The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
policing strategies: Using
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865815589824
deterrence theory to explain
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
provisional drivers’
(non)compliance
Lyndel Bates
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Key Centre for Ethics,
Law, Justice and Governance, Griffith University, Australia
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland
(CARRS-Q), Institute for Health and Biomedical Innovation,
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Millie J Darvell
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland
(CARRS-Q), Institute for Health and Biomedical Innovation,
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Barry Watson
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland
(CARRS-Q), Institute for Health and Biomedical Innovation,
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Abstract
Newly licenced drivers are disproportionately represented in traffic injuries and crash stat-
istics. Despite the implementation of countermeasures designed to improve safety, such as
graduated driver licencing (GDL) schemes, many young drivers do not comply with road
rules. This study used a reconceptualised deterrence theory framework to investigate young
drivers’ perceptions of the enforcement of road rules in general and those more specifically
related to GDL. A total of 236 drivers aged 17–24 completed a questionnaire assessing their
perceptions of various deterrence mechanisms (personal and vicarious) and their compliance
with both GDL-specific and general road rules. Hierarchical multiple regressions conducted
to explore noncompliant behaviour revealed that, contrary to theoretical expectations, nei-
ther personal nor vicarious punishment experiences affected compliance in the expected
direction. Instead, the most influential factors contributing to noncompliance were licence
type (P2) and, counterintuitively, having previously been exposed to enforcement.
Corresponding author:
Lyndel Bates, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance,
Griffith University, 176 Messines Ridge Road, Mt Gravatt, Brisbane, Queensland 4122, Australia.
Email: l.bates@griffith.edu.au
24
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 50(1)
Parental enforcement was also significant in the prediction of transient rule violations, but not
fixed rule violations or overall noncompliance. Findings are discussed in light of several
possibilities, including an increase in violations due to more time spent on the road, an
‘emboldening effect’ noted in prior studies and possible conceptual constraints regarding
the deterrence variables examined in this study.
Keywords
Compliance, deterrence theory, graduated driver licencing, provisional drivers, young drivers
Introduction
Graduated driver licensing (GDL) is a system designed to reduce the crash risk of newly
licensed drivers by minimising exposure to risky driving circumstances (Bates, Allen,
Armstrong, Watson, & King, 2014; Foss, 2007; Williams, Chaudhary, Tefft, & Tison,
2010). This type of licencing system comprises three phases: (1) a learner phase, in which
the novice driver gains practical driving experience under the supervision of a more
experienced driver; (2) a provisional or intermediate phase, during which the driver
can drive unsupervised, but is subjected to restrictions such as blood alcohol content
(BAC) and the transportation of young passengers and (3) a full licencing stage,
acquired once the driver has held their provisional licence for the required period and,
in some cases, passed additional tests (Bates, Allen, et al., 2014; Foss, 2007). Despite the
GDL system having the best evidence base of all current novice driver countermeasures,
many drivers in the provisional stage of their driving do not generally comply with road
rules (Scott-Parker, Watson, King, & Hyde, 2012). In fact, research suggests that the
further a driver progresses through the system, the less compliant they become (Allen,
Murphy, & Bates, under review; Scott-Parker et al., 2012). Compliance may be even
further influenced by factors such as preexisting risky driving tendencies (Hartos, Eitel,
& Simons-Morton, 2002), being male (McCartt, Shabanova, & Leaf, 2003) and younger
age, both in general (McCartt, Mayhew, Braitman, Ferguson, & Simpson, 2009) and in
terms of when first licenced (Hartos, Eitel, & Simons-Morton, 2001).
Deterrence theory is the most common framework used to guide the design and
implementation of enforcement measures in the area of road safety (Bates, Soole, &
Watson, 2012, Fleiter, Watson, & Lennon, 2013; Watling & Leal, 2012). Historically,
road safety enforcement countermeasures have been based on the classical deterrence
theory, which proposes that penalties must be perceived by the public as being certain,
severe and swift in order to effectively encourage compliance with the law (Homel, 1988).
Critiques regarding the original model’s conceptual limitations, however, have led to the
incorporation of additional constructs to acknowledge the influence of past personal
experiences of punishment avoidance, as well as punishment, along with indirect or
vicarious experiences of these outcomes through interactions with others. According
to Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualised model of deterrence, there are four central
deterrent mechanisms: (1) direct experience with punishment; (2) indirect experience
with punishment; (3) direct experience with punishment avoidance and (4) indirect
experience with punishment avoidance. Broadly, the expanded framework proposes
that illegal behaviour is deterred via direct and indirect (vicarious) experiences of
Bates et al.
25
threat and punishment, but encouraged by direct and indirect experiences of punishment
avoidance (Stafford & Warr, 1993). This revised framework has been applied across
various areas of road policing research, with studies lending particularly strong support
for the concept of punishment avoidance (Fleiter & Watson, 2006; Freeman & Watson,
2006; Gee Kee, Steinhardt, & Palk, 2007; Watson, 2004).
Despite considerable support for the empirical validity of the extended model, evi-
dence for the deterrent impact of vicarious experiences has been limited and inconsistent.
Firstly, vicarious experiences appear less influential amongst individuals well versed in
certain behaviours, who are instead more influenced by personal, specific encounters as
opposed to general deterrence mechanisms (Paternoster & Piquero, 1995). Secondly,
though punishment experienced indirectly via nonsignificant others (e.g., other commu-
nity members) can act as a deterrent, vicarious punishment avoidance is often only
influential when it involves close acquaintances or well-known others, at least in the
context of academic dishonesty and drunken driving (Sitren & Applegate, 2006, 2007).
Overall, the role of vicarious punishment has been unclear, with some research support-
ing it (Sitren & Applegate, 2006) and other studies questioning its impact (Sitren &
Applegate, 2007) or finding that it inadvertently encourages intentions to offend
(Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). More recent driving behaviour research examining speed-
ing (Fleiter & Watson, 2006), drunken driving (Freeman & Watson, 2006), unlicensed
driving (Watson, 2004) and hoon driving (Gee Kee et al., 2007) has either found no
support for vicarious exposure to others’ punishment or avoidance of punishment, or
have found evidence that contradicts deterrence premises (Sitren & Applegate, 2012).
Piquero and Pogarsky (2002) discuss these findings as resulting from a self-serving bias,
in that vicarious punishment experiences may actually reinforce one’s belief of being
more accomplished than others at breaking the law and escaping detection. Collectively,
these findings indicate that, contrary to theoretical predictions, indirect experiences do
not have the same influence as direct experiences of punishment and punishment avoid-
ance, at least in the area of driver behaviour.
Amongst teenagers, parental monitoring is also believed to encourage road rule com-
pliance (Bates, Allen, et al., 2014). Given the role parents play in shaping and supporting
novice drivers’ behaviours, it is not surprising that higher levels of parental involvement,
encouraging feedback and clear rule-breaking limits have been associated with less risky
driving in young drivers (Taubman-Ben-Ari & Katz-Ben-Ami, 2012). In contrast,
research has revealed links between limited parental monitoring or control and higher
levels of risky driving (Hartos, Eitel, Haynie, & Simons-Morton, 2000; Hartos et al.,
2002), violations (Hartos et al., 2000) and crash involvement (McCartt et al., 2003).
Only one study has specifically examined the impact of parental enforcement on com-
pliance in the context of deterrence theory, with the findings indicating that deterrence
imparted by parents, but not police, significantly predicted novice drivers’ compliance
with road rules (Allen et al., under review). Some speculate that compared to police
prosecution, younger drivers may be more susceptible to parental enforcement due to the
internal sense of shame evoked by family disapproval (Akers, 1994; Allen et al., under
review; Goodwin & Foss, 2004). As well as evoking shame, family disapproval may
result in negative consequences for young drivers, such as refusal of access to a vehicle.
Arguably,...
To continue reading
Request your trial