Perceived Legitimacy of Traffic Law Enforcement 1

Exploring perceived legitimacy of traffic law enforcement Watling, C.N.1 & Leal, N.L.1 1 Centre for Accident Researc & Road !afety " #$eensland %CARR!&#' Abstract T e ($r(ose of traffic law enforcement is to enco$rage com(liant driver )e avio$r. T at is, t e t reat of an $ndesira)le sanction enco$rages drivers to com(ly wit traffic laws. *owever, not all traffic law violations are considered e+$al. ,or e-am(le, w ile drin. driving is generally seen as socially $nacce(ta)le, )e avio$rs s$c as s(eeding are arg$a)ly less so, and s(eed enforcement is often (ortrayed in t e (o($lar media as a means of /reven$e raising0. T e (erceived legitimacy of traffic law enforcement as received limited researc attention to date. Perceived legitimacy of traffic law enforcement may infl$ence %or )e infl$enced )y' attit$des toward illegal driving )e avio$rs, and )ot of t ese factors are li.ely to infl$ence on&road driving )e avio$r. T is st$dy aimed to e-(lore attit$des toward a n$m)er of illegal driving )e avio$rs and traffic law enforcement a((roac es t at ty(ically target t ese )e avio$rs $sing self&re(orted data from a large sam(le of drivers. T e res$lts of t is researc can )e $sed to inform f$rt er researc in t is area, as well as t e content of ($)lic ed$cation and advertising cam(aigns designed to infl$ence attit$des toward illegal driving )e avio$rs and (erceived legitimacy of traffic law enforcement. Keywords Perceived legitimacy1 law enforcement1 attit$des1 driver )e avio$r. Introduction Considera)le gains ave )een made in road safety in A$stralia in recent decades, wit road deat s %and rates of road deat s (er ead of (o($lation' s owing a steady decline . *owever, a gro$( of )e avio$rs generally referred to as t e 2fatal fo$r3 contin$e to )e a factor in serio$s cas$alty %i.e., fatal and os(italisation' cras es. T ese )e avio$rs are ty(ically targeted in (olice road safety cam(aigns, s$c as t e 4515 C ristmas Road !afety Cam(aign in #$eensland, w ere #$eensland Police !ervice $nveiled fo$r ve icles feat$ring gravestones mar.ed wit t e fatal fo$r to raise motorist awareness a)o$t t e ris.s of t ese )e avio$rs . 6f t e 478 fatalities t at occ$rred on #$eensland roads in 4511, 45.9: 1 occ$rred in a cras w ere at least one controller was drin. driving, 1;.<: occ$rred in a cras w ere at least one controller was s(eeding, 1=.4: occ$rred in a cras w ere fatig$e was deemed to )e a factor, and 48.=:4 were $nrestrained . Traffic a$t orities ave dedicated considera)le effort to increasing driver awareness of t e ris.s associated wit s(eeding, drin. driving, driving w ile fatig$ed, and failing to wear a seat)elt. *owever, t ese efforts ave )een more s$ccessf$l in c anging some attit$des and )e avio$rs t an ot ers. ,or instance, s(eeding, drin. driving and fatig$ed driving are t ree of t e to( fo$r factors listed as contri)$ting to road cras es )y A$stralian motorists . *owever, t ere a((ears to )e a ga( )etween t e 2ac.nowledged3 (erce(tion of dangero$s )e avio$rs and t e act$al
1

A n$m)er of factors can )e fo$nd to contri)$te to a cras . ,or e-am(le, a fatally in>$red (erson may ave )een involved in a cras w ere at least one (erson was s(eeding, drin. driving, fatig$ed and?or $nrestrained. T $s t ese (ercentages are not m$t$ally e-cl$sive. 4 @enominator for (ercentage incl$des only cases w ere restraints were .nown to )e fitted in t e ve icle, and restraint $se was .nown.

Perceived Legitimacy of Traffic Law Enforcement 4

)e avio$rs of drivers. ,or e-am(le, s(eeding remains )y far t e most common traffic infringement , wit most drivers ignoring (osted s(eed limits wit im($nity . Aoreover, many individ$als view s(eeding fines as mainly intended to raise reven$e " even t o$g it is viewed as a serio$s road safety iss$e )y road safety (rofessionals . !imilarly, a remar.a)le (ro(ortion of individ$als re(ort driving w en t ey are feeling fatig$ed %=;:' , wit a large (ro(ortion of drivers %;B:' stating t at t ey wo$ld contin$e to drive even w en aware of t eir increasing levels of fatig$e . Alt o$g fatig$ed driving is rated as an im(ortant factor in ve icle cras es overall , t ere is emerging evidence t at t e dangero$sness of driver fatig$e is still largely $ndera((reciated )y drivers . W ile a (otential dis(arity e-ists )etween t e (erce(tions of ris. and act$al )e avio$r for s(eeding and fatig$ed driving, ot er ac.nowledged dangero$s )e avio$rs s$c as drin. driving and driving wit o$t a seat)elt ave more aligned (erce(tions of ris. and )e avio$rs. *owever, t is as not always )een t e case. T e s$ccess of traffic a$t orities in aligning t ese (erce(tions and )e avio$rs is most li.ely d$e to t e com)ined effects of a n$m)er of factors and cam(aigns t at ave raised ($)lic awareness and increased social disa((roval of t ese )e avio$rs over time, com(lemented )y (olice enforcement (ractices . Traffic enforcement activities re(resent a s$)stantial (ro(ortion of (olice reso$rces. T e ($r(ose of traffic law enforcement is to enco$rage road $sers to com(ly wit esta)lis ed traffic law, and it is traditionally $nder(inned )y deterrence t eory (rinci(les. @eterrence t eory (ro(oses t at t e (erceived conse+$ences of )eing a((re ended w ile engaging in a illegal )e avio$r will diss$ade t e illegal )e avio$r . Classical deterrence t eory is (redicated on t ree factorsC t e certainty, severity, and swiftness of ($nis ment. W en t e certainty of ($nis ment is ig , t e ($nis ment is severe, and dis(ensation of ($nis ment is swift, individ$als are li.ely to )e deterred . @eterrence t eory as )een s$ccessf$lly a((lied to investigations of illegal traffic )e avio$rs and t e develo(ment and im(lementation of road safety co$ntermeas$res, s$c as random )reat testing for drin. driving. T e a)ility of traffic a$t orities and (olice services to mani($late deterrence t eory varia)les to com(el individ$als to ad ere to traffic laws is limited )y (ractical constraints. Denerally, t e li.eli ood of )eing a((re ended )y (olice w en committing a traffic offence is +$ite low com(ared to t e n$m)er of times an individ$al engages in t e )e avio$r . Encreasing t e li.eli ood of detection )y increasing (olice enforcement is limited )y financial constraints. *owever, s(ecial o(erations or /)litFes0 involving ig ly ($)licised and ig ly visi)le enforcement may ave a tem(orary effect of increasing perceived li.eli ood of detection %*omel, 18<<'. Ef certainty of detection is low, certainty of ($nis ment will )e similarly low. *owever, mandatory (enalties can ens$re t at certainty of ($nis ment e-ists for detected offenders. Ess$es of low certainty of detection and t erefore low certainty of ($nis ment are (artic$larly (ro)lematic for )e avio$rs t at are more diffic$lt for (olice to detect, as is indeed t e case for fatig$ed driving, com(ared to s(eeding and drin. driving w ere o)>ective meas$res %s(eed readings, )lood?)reat alco ol concentrations' can )e o)tained and $sed to determine t e a((ro(riate offence category and sanction. T e severity of ($nis ment is a factor t at is wit in t e control of traffic a$t orities. Researc as s own t at it is im(ortant t at t e severity of a (enalty is consistent wit t e severity of t e offence, and t at it )e s$)stantial for it to infl$ence illegal )e avio$r . *owever, t ere is evidence from a n$m)er of road safety st$dies t at (erceived severity of (enalties is not as im(ortant as ot er deterrence varia)les, as some st$dies ave fo$nd no relations i( , or a (ositive relations i( )etween (erceived severity of (enalties and )e avio$r. Et as )een

Perceived Legitimacy of Traffic Law Enforcement B

arg$ed t at increasing t e severity of (enalties is $nli.ely to infl$ence )e avio$r $nless s$c an a((roac is accom(anied )y increased (erce(tions of li.eli ood of detection and certainty of ($nis ment . !wiftness of ($nis ment can )e en anced wit t e $se of administrative (enalties rat er t an co$rt (rocesses. Also, interce(ting drivers to iss$e infringement notices on t e s(ot rat er t an notices sent in t e (ost %e.g., in t e case of camera detected offences' will en ance swiftness of ($nis ment and )etter lin. t e ($nis ment received to t e )e avio$r. *owever, as noted a)ove in t e disc$ssion of certainty of detection, t ese enforcement strategies im(ose significant reso$rce im(lications on (olice services. Anot er limiting factor for deterrence is t e necessity to .ee( reinforcing t e deterrence effectiveness over time d$e to its tem(orary effects . T ese s ortcomings of deterrence ave led to ot er (aradigms to )e considered to e-(lain illegal )e avio$rs, incl$ding social learning t eory , (erceived legitimacy of laws and associated enforcement and defiance . Et was disc$ssed earlier in t is (a(er t at attit$des toward drin. driving, s(eeding, driving w ile fatig$ed and driving wit o$t a seat)elt a((ear to differ. Ef (eo(le3s (erce(tions of t e different )e avio$rs differ, it follows t at t e (erceived fairness of traffic law enforcement activities targeting t ese )e avio$rs may also differ. En addition, if t e )e avio$r and its enforcement met od are (erceived as legitimate, t en it co$ld )e e-(ected t at com(liance is more li.ely . T at is, an individ$al w o does not t in. s(eeding re(resents a significant cras ris. may not t in. it is legitimate for (olice to enforce s(eeding laws and iss$e ars (enalties for s(eeding. T ey may also )e $nli.ely to com(ly wit s(eed limits vol$ntarily. Com(lementing researc e-(loring attit$des toward illegal driving )e avio$rs and t eir infl$ence on )e avio$r wit researc e-amining (erce(tions of enforcement strategies designed to target t ese )e avio$rs may en ance o$r $nderstanding of t e factors t at infl$ence com(liance wit traffic laws. T is is a salient iss$e for road safety com(liance, es(ecially w en t e li.eli ood of a((re ension may )e low and certain (enalties may not )e (erceived as severe. En ancing o$r $nderstanding of t e factors t at infl$ence willingness to com(ly wit traffic laws can facilitate t e identification of a((ro(riate targets for intervention. As s$c , t e c$rrent st$dy so$g t to e-amine t e relations i(s )etween self&re(orted li.eli ood of )e avio$r, (erceived legitimacy of traffic law enforcement, and attit$des toward drin. driving, s(eeding, fatig$ed driving, and driving wit o$t a seat)elt in a sam(le of #$eensland drivers. Com(arisons )etween t e fo$r )e avio$rs on t ese varia)les were also of interest. Diven t at t ere is scant evidence t at as e-amined t ese fo$r illegal driving )e avio$rs toget er in t e same st$dy, or (erceived legitimacy of traffic law enforcement, fo$r researc +$estions were (ro(osed, rat er t an y(ot esesC R#1. @oes self&re(orted li.eli ood of engaging in drin. driving, s(eeding, driving w ile fatig$ed, and driving wit o$t a seat)elt differ )etween )e avio$rsG R#4. @oes (erceived legitimacy of enforcement of drin. driving, s(eeding, driving w ile fatig$ed, and seat)elt laws differ )etween )e avio$rsG R#B. @o attit$des toward drin. driving, s(eeding, driving w ile fatig$ed, and driving wit o$t a seat)elt differ )etween )e avio$rsG R#9. W at are t e associations )etween self&re(orted li.eli ood of engaging in illegal )e avio$r, (erceived legitimacy of enforcement and attit$des toward drin. driving, s(eeding, fatig$ed driving, and driving wit o$t a seat)eltG Method Participants

Perceived Legitimacy of Traffic Law Enforcement 9

To )e eligi)le for (artici(ation in t is st$dy, individ$als were re+$ired to c$rrently drive on #$eensland roads, and ave eld an 6(en driver3s licence B. Potential (artici(ants were invited via #$eensland Hniversity of Tec nology email distri)$tion lists, social networ.ing sites and a researc (artici(ation lin. on t e we)site of t e Centre for Accident Researc and Road !afety " #$eensland to com(lete an online s$rvey w ic too. a((ro-imately 15 " 1= min$tes. Partici(ants were offered t e c ance to enter a random draw for one of si- I=5 (etrol vo$c ers as a small t an. yo$ gift for (artici(ating 9. A total of B14 res(onses were received )efore t e s$rvey lin. was closed. Et was not (ossi)le to estimate t e n$m)er of (eo(le aware of t e s$rvey and t erefore a res(onse rate. Variables and measures T e fo$r illegal )e avio$rs of interest in t is st$dy were drin. driving, s(eeding, driving w ile fatig$ed and driving wit o$t a seat)elt. T e de(endent varia)les were li.eli ood of engaging in t ese )e avio$rs in t e ne-t mont , w ile t e (redictor varia)les were attit$des toward eac )e avio$r, and t e (erceived legitimacy of traffic law enforcement activities designed to target t em. T e de(endent varia)les, li.eli ood of engaging in t e illegal )e avio$rs, were meas$red $sing items w ere (artici(ants re(orted t e li.eli ood of engaging in drin. driving %descri)ed as /drive w en yo$ t in. yo$ may )e over yo$r legal alco ol limit0', s(eeding %descri)ed as /drive over t e (osted s(eed limit0', driving w ile fatig$ed %descri)ed as /drive w en yo$ are feeling fatig$ed?slee(y0' and driving wit o$t a seat)elt in t e ne-t mont on a =&(oint Li.ert scale scored from 1 %e-tremely $nli.ely' to = %e-tremely li.ely'. T ere were a n$m)er of items for eac )e avio$r to assess t e li.eli ood in a variety of circ$mstances, )ased on a review of t e relevant literat$re. T ese items were averaged to form fo$r scale scores, one for eac of t e investigated driving )e avio$rs. *ig er scores indicate ig er li.eli ood of engaging in t e )e avio$r in t e ne-t mont . ,or drin. driving, t e circ$mstances were w en driving alone, w en driving wit (assengers, and w en driving in t e late nig t?early morning o$rs. ,or s(eeding, t e circ$mstances were w en driving alone, w en driving wit (assengers, driving w en t ere is little ot er traffic, and w en driving on ig ways. ,or driving w ile fatig$ed, t e circ$mstances were w en driving alone, and w en driving wit (assengers. ,or seat)elt $se, t e circ$mstances were w en driving alone, w en driving wit (assengers, w en driving only a s ort distance, and w en driving in t e late nig t?early morning o$rs. T e inde(endent varia)le (erceived legitimacy of traffic law enforcement (ractices was meas$red $sing a series of items as.ing (artici(ants to indicate t eir agreement wit statements on a =&(oint Li.ert scale scored from 1 %strongly disagree' to = %strongly agree'. T e items were develo(ed $sing similar wording to t at $sed )y Po$lter and AcJenna %455;', and item scores were averaged to form scale scores for eac )e avio$r. *ig er scores indicated greater (erceived legitimacy of enforcement a((roac es. ,or drin. driving, t e items as.ed (artici(ants to consider t e fairness of random )reat testing, targeting drivers w o a((ear to )e driving erratically, and )reat testing all cras &involved drivers. ,or s(eeding, t ey considered mar.ed fi-ed s(eed cameras, mo)ile radars, idden s(eed cameras and devices, and s(eed enforcement anyw ere on t e road networ.. ,or driving w ile fatig$ed, (artici(ants considered t e fairness of c arging cras &involved drivers fo$nd to )e
B

T is criterion was $sed to ens$re (artici(ants ad a minim$m of t ree years $ns$(ervised driving e-(erience, even if t eir licence stat$s ad c anged as a res$lt of a licence sanction. An 6(en driver3s licence is generally $nrestricted in #$eensland. T ere were more t an B,555,555 licences on record in #$eensland d$ring data collection. 9 @raw entry involved entering an email address at t e end of t e s$rvey. @raw entries were stored in a se(arate data)ase to s$rvey res(onses to ens$re res(onses co$ld not )e lin.ed to individ$als.

Perceived Legitimacy of Traffic Law Enforcement =

fatig$ed, and iss$ing dangero$s driving offences d$e to fatig$e. ,or seat)elt $se, (artici(ants res(onded to items a)o$t randomly sto((ing motorists to c ec. seat)elt $se, c ec.ing seat)elt $se w en sto((ing drivers for ot er reasons %e.g., at RKT sites', and c arging cras &involved drivers w o were not wearing a seat)elt. ,or all )e avio$rs, (erceived legitimacy scales incl$ded an item stating t at (olice s o$ld s(end more time and reso$rces on t at iss$e. T e inde(endent varia)le of attit$des toward t e )e avio$rs of interest in t is researc was meas$red $sing a series of items as.ing (artici(ants to indicate t eir agreement wit statements on a =&(oint Li.ert scale scored from 1 %strongly disagree' to = %strongly agree'. T e items were develo(ed )ased on t e definitions com(onent of A.ers3 social learning t eory . ,or eac )e avio$r, t ere were two (ositive, two ne$tral and two negative statements. Consistent wit g$idelines (resented )y A.ers for t e develo(ment of items )ased on t is t eory, (ositive and ne$tral definitions indicate an acce(tance of t e illegal driving )e avio$r . T $s scale scores were calc$lated for eac )e avio$r )y reverse scoring t e negatively worded items and averaging item scores, so t at ig er scores indicated more (ositive attit$des toward t e )e avio$r. T e (ositive statements were t at (eo(le w o engage in t e )e avio$r are generally )etter drivers, and generally more caref$l on t e road. T e ne$tral items were t at engaging in t e )e avio$r was o.ay as long as yo$ don3t do it too m$c , and as long as no one gets $rt. T e negative items were t at ars er (enalties are needed for t e )e avio$r, and t at t ere is no e-c$se for engaging in t e )e avio$r. Procedure After o)taining et ics and ealt safety a((roval from t e #$eensland Hniversity of Tec nology, invitations to (artici(ate were distri)$ted online. T e lin. to t e online s$rvey remained active for a((ro-imately one mont . Et was not (ossi)le to com(lete t e s$rvey more t an once $sing t e same Enternet Protocol %EP' address. Res(onses were downloaded from t e online s$rvey tool into E-cel s(reads eets, w ic were t en im(orted into !P!! for analysis. T e data was cleaned and ass$m(tions of statistical tests c ec.ed )efore t e final analysis (roced$re was confirmed and e-ec$ted to address t e st$dy researc +$estions. Results Data cleaning and screening 6f t e B14 (eo(le w o res(onded to t e s$rvey, one (erson did not (roceed )eyond t e consent (age, and 1< did not meet t e selection criteria %t ree (eo(le did not drive in #$eensland and 1= ad never eld an 6(en driver3s licence'. T $s, valid res(onses were received from 48B (artici(ants. T ere was only a small amo$nt of missing data scattered t ro$g o$t t e data set, wit no varia)le e-ceeding more t an =:. A Aissing Lal$es Analysis was cond$cted $sing Little3s Aissing Com(letely At Random %ACAR' test. Et was not significant 2 %=<4' M =4=.91, p M .8=, indicating t at t e missing data was distri)$ted randomly. Rat er t an deleting (artici(ants wit any missing data from t e st$dy and red$ce statistical (ower, listwise deletion was $sed to deal wit missing data on an analysis )y analysis )asis. T is meant t at only (artici(ants wit missing scores on one or more of t e varia)les $nder analysis were e-cl$ded from an individ$al test %)$t co$ld )e incl$ded in ot er tests w ere t ey did ave com(lete data'. !am(le siFes for analyses t erefore varied slig tly. T e data was e-amined for its distri)$tional (ro(erties wit de(art$res from normality occ$rring, and some eterogeneity of wit in gro$(s variance, w ic is common wit illegal )e avio$r data. T $s non&(arametric tests were $sed to address t e st$dy researc +$estions. Researc +$estions 1, 4 and B were addressed $sing ,riedman3s test, wit significant tests to

Perceived Legitimacy of Traffic Law Enforcement 7

)e followed $( wit a series of Wilco-on signed&ran. tests to identify t e significant (airwise com(arisons $sing an ad>$sted al( a level of p N .55<B. Researc +$estion 9 was addressed )y calc$lating !(earman3s R o correlation coefficients. Analyses T e average age of t e (artici(ants was B8.57 years % SD M 19.871 range M 45&<9 years' wit t e ma>ority of t e sam(le )eing female %=<.;:'. A((ro-imately alf of t e sam(le %=<.;:' were $niversity ed$cated %$ndergrad$ate B1.9:, (ostgrad$ate 4;.B'. T e ma>ority of t e sam(le %<7.9:' was em(loyed %f$ll&time =;.;:, (art&time 15.4:, cas$al <.8:, self& em(loyed 8.7:' wit t e remaining sam(le )eing $nem(loyed %9.9:' or st$dents %8.4:'. 6n average, t e sam(le re(orted aving )een licensed for 18.7< years %SD M 19.;5'. T e ma>ority of t e sam(le drove )etween 1&15 o$rs (er wee. %71.1:', followed )y BB.1: of t e sam(le t at drove 15&45 o$rs (er wee. %BB.1:' and =.<: t at drove more t an 45 o$rs (er wee.. T e means, standard deviations, and Cron)ac 3s al( as for li.eli ood of )e avio$r, (erceived legitimacy of traffic law enforcement and attit$des scale scores for eac )e avio$r can )e fo$nd in Ta)le 1. All varia)les ad a range of 1&= wit ig er scores indicating greater li.eli ood, greater (erceived legitimacy and more (ositive attit$des res(ectively. T e internal consistency of all scales was ade+$ate %Cron)ac 3s al( a O .;5'. Table 1 Aeans, !tandard @eviations, and Cron)ac 3s Al( as for st$dy scale scores Item M SD ! "o of items
Likelihood of behaviour @rin. driving !(eeding ,atig$ed driving @riving wit o$t a seat)elt Perceived legitimacy @rin. driving !(eeding ,atig$ed driving @riving wit o$t a seat)elt Attitudes @rin. driving !(eeding ,atig$ed driving @riving wit o$t a seat)elt
a

1.B5 4.89 4.=9 1.57 9.=5 B.77 B.=4 B.<8 1.=1 4.48 4.15 1.;8

5.74 1.BB 1.1= 5.95 5.=4 5.8< 5.<; 5.<= 5.=; 5.87 5.78 5.7;

.;1 .8= .<=a .84 .;4 .81 .;; .<1 .;= .<8 .<1 .<4

B 9 4 9 9 ; B 9 7 7 7 7

Pearson3s correlation coefficient

E-amination of t e li.eli ood of )e avio$r means s$ggested t at on t e w ole, t e sam(le was not li.ely to drive wit o$t a seat)elt or drin. drive1 wit )ot items e- i)iting small standard deviations. T e fatig$ed driving mean was slig tly )elow t e mid&(oint, indicating t at (artici(ants in general considered it $nli.ely t ey wo$ld engage in fatig$ed driving in t e ne-t mont . T e mean for t e s(eeding item was virt$ally on t e mid&(oint of t e =&(oint Li.ert scale, wit a large standard deviation1 s$ggesting t at li.eli ood of s(eeding varied wit in t e sam(le, w ic incl$ded )ot li.ely and $nli.ely s(eeders. ,or researc +$estion 1, ,riedman3s test fo$nd t at t ere were significant differences in li.eli ood of engaging in t e )e avio$rs of interest in t is st$dy in t e ne-t mont , 2 %B' M 9<5.<7, p N .551. All (ost oc (airwise com(arisons %Wilco-on signed&ran. tests' were significant at p N .55<B.

Perceived Legitimacy of Traffic Law Enforcement ;

!cores for (erceived legitimacy of law enforcement efforts targeting t e fo$r )e avio$rs s$ggested t at, on average, t e sam(le )elieved it was fair to enforce t ese laws. T e ig est level of agreement was fo$nd for t e enforcement of drin. driving laws, followed )y seat)elt $se. Enforcement of s(eeding and fatig$ed driving were re(orted to )e t e least fair and were +$ite similar in magnit$de. ,or researc +$estion 4, ,riedman3s test fo$nd (erceived legitimacy of traffic law enforcement (ractices varied significantly )y )e avio$r, 2 %B' M 4<1.54, p N .551, wit significant Wilco-on signed&ran. tests at p N .55<B for all (airwise com(arisons e-ce(t fatig$e vers$s s(eeding %p M .54<'. 6n average, t e sam(le re(orted $nfavo$ra)le attit$des toward all of t e )e avio$rs, and varia)ility was small. T e least favo$ra)le attit$de was for drin. driving w ic was followed )y driving wit o$t a seat)elt, fatig$ed driving, and s(eeding. 6f note was t at t e standard deviation for attit$des toward s(eeding was larger t an t at for t e ot er )e avio$rs, and it encom(assed t e mid&(oint, indicating t at some (artici(ants ad favo$ra)le attit$des toward s(eeding. ,or researc +$estion B, ,riedman3s test fo$nd t at attit$des toward t e )e avio$rs differed significantly, 2 %B' M B7B.==, p N .551. All (airwise com(arisons were significant at p N .55<B. Ta)le 4 s ows t e )ivariate correlations )etween t e st$dy varia)les for eac of t e driving )e avio$rs of interest, calc$lated to address researc +$estion 9. Table # Kivariate correlation matri- %!(earman3s r o' $ariable
Drink Driving 1. Li.eli ood of drin. driving 4. Perceived legitimacy of drin. driving law enforcement B. Attit$des toward drin. driving Speeding 1. Li.eli ood of s(eeding 4. Perceived legitimacy of s(eed law enforcement B. Attit$des toward s(eeding Driving while fatigued 1. Li.eli ood of driving w ile fatig$ed 4. Perceived legitimacy of fatig$e law enforcement B. Attit$des toward fatig$ed driving Driving without a seatbelt 1. Li.eli ood of driving wit o$t a seat)elt 4. Perceived legitimacy of seat)elt law enforcement B. Attit$des toward driving wit o$t a seat)elt
Q p N .5=1 QQ p N .551

1
P &.1=Q &.B9QQ P &.91QQ &.7=QQ P &.4BQQ &.91QQ P &.5< &.58

#
P &.99QQ

P &.78QQ

P &.9<QQ

P &.==QQ

Perceived legitimacy of law enforcement was significantly associated wit li.eli ood of engaging in drin. driving, s(eeding and driving w ile fatig$ed, wit lower (erceived legitimacy associated wit greater li.eli ood of engaging in t e )e avio$r in t e ne-t mont . T e strengt of t e relations i(s varied from small to moderate, wit t e strongest relations i( fo$nd for s(eeding, followed )y driving w ile fatig$ed and t en drin. driving. Perceived legitimacy of enforcing seat)elt laws was not significantly associated wit li.eli ood of driving wit o$t wearing a seat)elt in t e ne-t mont , alt o$g t is may )e an artefact of t e small varia)ility in li.eli ood scores, wit t e ma>ority of t e sam(le %8;.8:' re(orting it was li.ely t ey wo$ld wear a seat)elt.

Perceived Legitimacy of Traffic Law Enforcement <

A similar (attern of res$lts emerged for t e relations i(s )etween attit$des and li.eli ood scores, wit (ositive attit$des associated wit greater li.eli ood of engaging in drin. driving, s(eeding and driving w ile fatig$ed in t e ne-t mont . Again, t e strengt of t e relations i(s were moderate, wit t e strongest relations i( o)served for s(eeding, followed )y driving w ile fatig$ed and t en drin. driving. Attit$des toward seat)elt $se were not significantly associated wit li.eli ood of driving wit o$t wearing a seat)elt in t e ne-t mont . T e relations i(s )etween (erceived legitimacy of law enforcement and attit$des scores were all significantly correlated for all )e avio$rs wit moderate to large correlations1 more (ositive attit$des towards t e illegal )e avio$rs were associated wit lower (erceived legitimacy of enforcement targeting t ese )e avio$rs. &iscussion T e ($r(ose of t e c$rrent st$dy was to e-amine t e relations i(s )etween self&re(orted li.eli ood of )e avio$r, (erceived legitimacy of traffic law enforcement, and attit$des toward drin. driving, s(eeding, fatig$ed driving, and driving wit o$t a seat)elt. Com(arisons )etween t e fo$r )e avio$rs on t ese varia)les were also of interest. Eac year, t e amo$nt of road fatalities and serio$s in>$ries t at are attri)$ted to one of t ese illegal driving )e avio$rs are s$)stantial. T $s, e-amining factors associated wit com(liance wit traffic reg$lations w ic may inform interventions designed to red$ce t ese )e avio$rs and associated cras es as im(ortant im(lications for road safety. E-amination of researc +$estion 1 fo$nd t at t e self&re(orted li.eli ood of engaging in drin. driving, s(eeding, driving w ile fatig$ed, and driving wit o$t a seat)elt were significantly different. 6verall, driving wit o$t a seat)elt was t e least li.ely )e avio$r re(orted, followed )y drin. driving, driving w ile fatig$ed, and finally, s(eeding. T is (attern of li.eli ood is somew at similar to ot er st$dies t at ave e-amined )e avio$ral intentions of A$stralian motorists . *owever, t e relatively small (ro(ortion of t e sam(le re(orting t ey were li.ely to engage in t ese )e avio$rs s$ggests t at t e c$rrent sam(le did not a((ear to )e a (artic$larly ig &ris. driving co ort. Et was noted in t e (resentation of res$lts t at t ere were (artic$larly low levels of varia)ility for li.eli ood of driving wit o$t seat)elt, w ic may ave im(acted o$r a)ility to detect significant relations i(s wit st$dy varia)les. *owever, t e two )e avio$rs of driving w ile fatig$ed and s(eeding s owed ig er levels of varia)ility in addition to greater self&re(orted li.eli ood of engaging in t ese )e avio$rs in t e ne-t mont . T erefore, w ile contin$ed ed$cation cam(aigns and enforcement of all ig & ris. driving )e avio$rs is enco$raged, (er a(s greater em( asis is warranted for driver fatig$e and s(eeding. Et is im(ortant to note t at t ere are differences in t e e-tent to w ic self&re(orted li.eli ood, or even )e avio$ral intentions, are relevant to t e fo$r )e avio$rs of interest in t is st$dy. ,or e-am(le, intentions may )e more relevant for t e more deli)erate )e avio$rs s$c as drin. driving and driving wit o$t a seat)elt, vers$s s(eeding and driving w ile fatig$ed, w ic can occ$r $nintentionally. T is iss$e s o$ld )e e-(lored in more detail in f$t$re researc , (er a(s drawing from ot er (aradigms s$c as T eory of Planned Ke avio$r t at incl$de a meas$re of (erceived )e avio$ral control. T e (erceived legitimacy of enforcement of traffic )e avio$rs is an im(ortant as(ect of road safety w ic as received limited attention (revio$sly. E-amination of researc +$estion 4 fo$nd t at t ere were also differences in (artici(ants3 (erce(tions of t e legitimacy of traffic law enforcement a((roac es for t e fo$r )e avio$rs of interest in t is st$dy. Consistent wit

Perceived Legitimacy of Traffic Law Enforcement 8

t e low self&re(orted li.eli ood scores for drin. driving and driving wit o$t a seat)elt, t ese two )e avio$rs were fo$nd to )e t e most fair of t e illegal driving )e avio$rs to )e enforced, res(ectively. *owever, t e (erceived legitimacy of drin. driving law enforcement was significantly ig er t an t at for seat)elt $se. T is is (ossi)ly d$e to t e negative image t at drin. driving olds as well as social sanctions for t is )e avio$r . Et is interesting to note t at in A$stralia, a societal attit$dinal c ange as occ$rred wit res(ect to t e acce(ta)ility of drin. driving . T is c ange is li.ely to infl$ence t e (erceived legitimacy of enforcing drin. driving, as a moderate and (ositive correlation was fo$nd )etween attit$des and t e (erceived legitimacy of enforcement of drin. driving in t e c$rrent st$dy. !(eed and driver fatig$e enforcement were (erceived as t e least legitimate, wit t ese two legitimacy scores not differing significantly. T ese two factors commonly contri)$te to serio$s cras es, owever it is often re(orted in t e media t at s(eed cameras are (erceived as 2reven$e raisers3 . Diven t at some drivers s(eed fre+$ently )$t cras es are infre+$ent events, t is may red$ce t e (erceived ris. of s(eeding and lead to t e (erce(tion t at attem(ts to detect and ($nis t is )e avio$r are less legitimate t an t ose targeting ot er )e avio$rs, s$c as drin. driving. *owever, consistent wit t e li.eli ood of )e avio$r mean scores, w ic s$ggested t at t e sam(le was generally com(liant, t e mean (erceived legitimacy scores were all a)ove t e mid&(oint on t e scale, s$c t at enforcement of t e laws designed to target t e illegal )e avio$rs of interest in t is st$dy were (erceived as legitimate. E-amination of researc +$estion B fo$nd t at attit$des toward t e fo$r )e avio$rs were also significantly different from eac ot er. Consistent wit t e (attern of res$lts for li.eli ood of )e avio$r and (erceived legitimacy of enforcement scales, (artici(ants re(orted t e most (ositive attit$des toward s(eeding, w ic were significantly more (ositive t an attit$des toward driving w ile fatig$ed, w ic were in t$rn significantly more (ositive t an attit$des toward driving wit o$t a seat)elt. T e least (ositive attit$des were toward drin. driving. Researc +$estion 9 was concerned wit t e associations )etween st$dy varia)les. ,or drin. driving, s(eeding, and driving w ile fatig$ed, significant correlations )etween li.eli ood of )e avio$r, (erceived legitimacy of enforcement, and attit$des were detected. All )$t one of t ese correlations was moderate in magnit$de. T e only significant correlation among t e seat)elt varia)les was for t e relations i( )etween (erceived legitimacy and attit$des. Et was noted in t e res$lts section t at t e small varia)ility in seat)elt data %restriction in range' may ave im(acted on o$r a)ility to detect significant relations i(s )etween t ese varia)les. T e ig est correlations )etween (erceived legitimacy and li.eli ood of )e avio$r scores were fo$nd for s(eeding and driving w ile fatig$ed, res(ectively. T ese )e avio$rs also ad t e ig est li.eli ood means. T ese res$lts s$ggest t at it may )e (ossi)le to red$ce s(eeding and driving w ile fatig$ed if efforts are made to increase t e (erceived legitimacy of enforcement of t ese )e avio$rs. T is may involve ($)lic ed$cation regarding t e ris.s of t ese )e avio$rs, and information a)o$t t e ($r(ose and effectiveness of associated enforcement. En t e case of s(eeding, (roviding t e ($)lic wit information a)o$t ow money t e government receives from s(eeding fines is $sed may also increase (erceived legitimacy of t e s(eed enforcement (rogram. T e strongest correlations )etween attit$des and li.eli ood of )e avio$r scores were also fo$nd for s(eeding and fatig$ed driving, res(ectively. Again, ($)lic ed$cation a)o$t t e cras ris.s of t ese )e avio$rs may red$ce (ositive attit$des toward t ese )e avio$rs, and in t$rn red$ce intentions to engage in t ese )e avio$rs in t e f$t$re. T e lower correlations )etween drin. driving varia)les may reflect t e (revio$s s$ccess of cam(aigns targeting t is )e avio$r. Li.eli ood of engaging in drin. driving was low, (erceived legitimacy of drin. driving laws was ig , and attit$des toward drin. driving

Perceived Legitimacy of Traffic Law Enforcement 15

were negative in t is sam(le, wit small varia)ility. *owever, it is im(ortant to maintain foc$s on drin. driving to ens$re t ese gains are maintained . T e strongest correlations o)served in t is st$dy were fo$nd )etween (erceived legitimacy and attit$des scores. T is s ows t at ig (erceived legitimacy of enforcement is associated wit negative attit$des toward t e )e avio$r. *owever, t e ca$sal nat$re of t e relations i( cannot )e determined. Et is not (ossi)le $sing t is data to ascertain w et er (ositive attit$des mean a (erson is li.ely to consider enforcement as less legitimate, or w et er (erce(tions t at enforcement is not legitimate %or (er a(s e-cessive' may lead to a (erson aving more (ositive attit$des toward t e )e avio$r. Kot varia)les may )e infl$enced )y anot er. ,or e-am(le, cognitive dissonance wo$ld s$ggest t at a (erson w o engages in a )e avio$r is li.ely to old (ositive attit$des toward it . Ef one is (ositive a)o$t a )e avio$r, t ey are $nli.ely to also )e (ositive a)o$t enforcement of it. T e largest correlation fo$nd in t e c$rrent st$dy was )etween attit$des toward s(eeding and t e (erceived legitimacy of enforcement of s(eeding. T is is a (romising target for intervention, as (revio$s wor. )y AcJenna as s own t at s(eeding interventions targeting attit$des increase individ$als3 (erceived legitimacy of s(eeding enforcement. T ere are several limitations of t e c$rrent st$dy t at re+$ire consideration in f$t$re researc . ,irst, t e sam(ling met odology $tilised a convenience sam(le. T at is, (artici(ants were not randomly selected for (artici(ation in t e st$dy and as s$c , self&selection )ias may ave occ$rred. T e analyses s o$ld )e re(licated wit a )roader sam(le %i.e., wit a more re(resentative range of com(liant and less com(liant drivers' to confirm t e res$lts. !econd, t e data o)tained was via self&re(ort and given t e sensitive nat$re of t e collected data %i.e., illegal driving )e avio$rs', social desira)ility effects co$ld ave affected t e o)tained res$lts . *owever, t e c$rrent st$dy $tilised an online +$estionnaire w ere (artici(ant3s anonymity was ass$red. Researc s$ggests t at t e effect of social desira)ility is less (rominent w en +$estionnaires are com(leted in a (rivate environment as o((osed to a ($)lic environment . T ird, only sim(le statistical analyses were cond$cted d$e to t e e-(loratory nat$re of t e researc . ,$t$re researc is re+$ired to refine t e meas$res %(artic$larly meas$res of (erceived legitimacy of traffic law enforcement, w ic are com(aratively novel relative to meas$res of t e ot er st$dy varia)les', and determine t eir (syc ometric (ro(erties )efore more so( isticated analyses can )e $sed to )etter $nderstand t e relations i(s )etween t e varia)les. ,inally, t is st$dy did not attem(t to meas$re act$al )e avio$r of res(ondents, o(ting to meas$re li.eli ood of f$t$re )e avio$r. Lalidation of meas$res in f$t$re researc s o$ld incl$de an e-amination of t e e-tent to w ic self&re(orted li.eli ood of )e avio$r is related to act$al )e avio$r, alt o$g t e )e avio$ral intention literat$re s$ggests t at t e relations i( )etween self&re(orted intention to commit illegal )e avio$r and act$al )e avio$r ranges )etween Pearson3s r M .;8 and .<B . 'onclusion and recommendations !elf&re(orted li.eli ood of )e avio$r, (erceived legitimacy of enforcement and attit$des differ )etween drin. driving, s(eeding, driving w ile fatig$ed and driving wit o$t a seat)elt. T e strengt of t e association )etween st$dy varia)les also differs )etween t e )e avio$rs, w ic as im(lications for ow t e varia)les can inform interventions designed to red$ce t ese ig &ris. )e avio$rs and associated cras es. As most of t e relations i(s )etween varia)les were moderate in magnit$de, f$t$re researc is re+$ired to )etter $nderstand ow t ese factors infl$ence eac ot er to inform t e develo(ment of m$ltivariate (redictive models. Aoreover, a +$alitative researc met odology co$ld (rovide some in&de(t data w ic is not feasi)le wit t e +$antitative researc met od $sed in t is st$dy. Et was

Perceived Legitimacy of Traffic Law Enforcement 11

(revio$sly mentioned t at t e level of (erceived legitimacy can )e increased )y an intervention . As s$c , assessing t e level of (erceived legitimacy of A$stralian interventions co$ld )e )eneficial to assess t e effectiveness of s$c interventions. En t is regard, wor. is needed to develo( valid and relia)le meas$res of (erceived legitimacy. Longit$dinal met odologies to assess t e long&term effectiveness of s$c (rograms may also )e val$a)le. Last, ot er $ndesira)le road )e avio$rs s$c as dr$g driving, ooning, and driver aggression s o$ld similarly )e e-amined wit t is (aradigm. Ac(nowledgements T is researc was cond$cted as a Postgrad$ate @i(loma in Psyc ology gro$( (ro>ect at t e Centre for Accident Researc and Road !afety " #$eensland %CARR!&#'. T e assistance of Nat an @ovan, Da)rielle !te( enson and Ranelle Trenorden in s$rvey develo(ment and data collection is gratef$lly ac.nowledged. Conference attendance was f$nded )y CARR!&#. References