Unlicensed motorists driver feature prominently in Australias road crash statistics. Their crashes contribute about one in every twelve road fatalities. This monograph describes the Australian fatal crash involvement of those unlicensed motorists who drive or ride without ever having obtained a drivers or riders licence for the type of vehicle used, as distinct from those who drive or ride whilst disqualified. The description is based on data derived from coroners records about fatal crashes in 1994 and 1996, the latest years currently available. Composite descriptions of all unlicensed motorists involved in Australian fatal road transport crashes were given in the former Federal Office of Road Safetys monographs 20 and 21 (1997).
Community Attitudes to Road Safety main trends
Vehicle speed and drink driving continue to be clearly perceived by the Australian community as the dominant factors leading to road crashes. The CAS monitor has consistently found that each of these factors is spontaneously mentioned by over half the population as a major crash cause.
Despite this high awareness of the results of speeding and drink driving, there is still a marked and persistent difference in public attitudes towards enforcement of these issues. For example, whereas support for random breath testing has been almost universal over the life of the survey (consistently at 97%), opinions on speed enforcement have been much more divided. This year's survey shows 56% of the community still agree with the proposition that 'fines for speeding are mainly intended to raise revenue' and one in three still agree that 'it is okay to exceed the speed limit if you are driving safely.'
While the community clearly views speeding as more socially acceptable than drink driving, there is growing evidence of a positive shift in public attitudes. Over the past seven surveys, responses to a range of speed-related questions suggest that people are becoming less permissive of speeding behaviours. CAS 13 in particular has shown an increase in acceptance of 50 km/h in residential streets, though desire for 40 km is still a minority view. CAS 13 also shows fewer people tolerating speeds over 60 km in residential streets.
The CAS series has also shown an increasing trend in the number of people who say or agree that:
* they only speed occasionally or never speed
* there should be no tolerance or at most a 5 km/h tolerance for breaking the speed limit in a 60 km/h zone
* an extra 10 km/h will significantly increase crash risk, an
* in 60 km/h zones, an extra 10 km/h will make any crash a lot more severe.
At the same time, there has been a decrease in the number of people who would tolerate speeding at 15 km/h or above in 100 km/h zones and in the number of people who believe that it is okay to speed if driving safely.
While the research has been showing that fatigue is increasingly being recognised as a major contributor to road crashes, the latest survey shows a small decline in mentions of this factor. Compared with six years ago, mention of fatigue as one of three main reasons for road crashes nearly doubled, from 19% in CAS 7 (1993) to 35% in CAS 12. CAS 13 still records a high 30% mention, unaided.
Despite this high awareness of the results of speeding and drink driving, there is still a marked and persistent difference in public attitudes towards enforcement of these issues. For example, whereas support for random breath testing has been almost universal over the life of the survey (consistently at 97%), opinions on speed enforcement have been much more divided. This year's survey shows 56% of the community still agree with the proposition that 'fines for speeding are mainly intended to raise revenue' and one in three still agree that 'it is okay to exceed the speed limit if you are driving safely.'
While the community clearly views speeding as more socially acceptable than drink driving, there is growing evidence of a positive shift in public attitudes. Over the past seven surveys, responses to a range of speed-related questions suggest that people are becoming less permissive of speeding behaviours. CAS 13 in particular has shown an increase in acceptance of 50 km/h in residential streets, though desire for 40 km is still a minority view. CAS 13 also shows fewer people tolerating speeds over 60 km in residential streets.
The CAS series has also shown an increasing trend in the number of people who say or agree that:
* they only speed occasionally or never speed
* there should be no tolerance or at most a 5 km/h tolerance for breaking the speed limit in a 60 km/h zone
* an extra 10 km/h will significantly increase crash risk, an
* in 60 km/h zones, an extra 10 km/h will make any crash a lot more severe.
At the same time, there has been a decrease in the number of people who would tolerate speeding at 15 km/h or above in 100 km/h zones and in the number of people who believe that it is okay to speed if driving safely.
While the research has been showing that fatigue is increasingly being recognised as a major contributor to road crashes, the latest survey shows a small decline in mentions of this factor. Compared with six years ago, mention of fatigue as one of three main reasons for road crashes nearly doubled, from 19% in CAS 7 (1993) to 35% in CAS 12. CAS 13 still records a high 30% mention, unaided.
International motorcycle transport safety
Comparisons of motorcycle safety between nations need to take into account the relative size of motorcycle fleets in those nations.
Comparisons here are therefore made in terms of fatalities per 10 000 registered motorcycles.
Table 1 shows that when adjustment is made for differences in motorcycle fleet sizes, motorcycle safety in Australia compares unfavourably with that of the OECD as a whole.
In 1997, Australia had 5.7 motorcyclist fatalities per 10 000 registered motorcycles compared with a median of 4.0 fatalities for the OECD as a whole. The 1997 comparisons are summarised in Figure 1. This shows that Australia ranked sixth worst amongst 23 nations for which data were reported.
Finland had the lowest rate, 1.2 fatalities per 10 000 registered motorcycles. France had the highest rate, 8.9 fatalities per 10 000 registered motorcycles.
Table 1 shows that this is not just a recent phenomenon. In 1987, Australia had 10.2 motorcyclist fatalities per 10 000 registered motorcycles compared with 6.6 fatalities for the OECD as a whole.
This poor result is surprising given Australias overall road safety record. Australias fatality rate for all road users per 10 000 registered motor vehicles in 1997 was 1.5. This rate was well below the OECD median of 2.0 and ranked Australia equal sixth best amongst 23 OECD nations.
It might be conjectured that the relatively poor status of motorcycle road safety in Australia stems from differences in the culture of motorcycle use or differences in the road environment but this remains unclear. As discussed below, there is no strong evidence that it stems from more time spent on the road.
Comparisons here are therefore made in terms of fatalities per 10 000 registered motorcycles.
Table 1 shows that when adjustment is made for differences in motorcycle fleet sizes, motorcycle safety in Australia compares unfavourably with that of the OECD as a whole.
In 1997, Australia had 5.7 motorcyclist fatalities per 10 000 registered motorcycles compared with a median of 4.0 fatalities for the OECD as a whole. The 1997 comparisons are summarised in Figure 1. This shows that Australia ranked sixth worst amongst 23 nations for which data were reported.
Finland had the lowest rate, 1.2 fatalities per 10 000 registered motorcycles. France had the highest rate, 8.9 fatalities per 10 000 registered motorcycles.
Table 1 shows that this is not just a recent phenomenon. In 1987, Australia had 10.2 motorcyclist fatalities per 10 000 registered motorcycles compared with 6.6 fatalities for the OECD as a whole.
This poor result is surprising given Australias overall road safety record. Australias fatality rate for all road users per 10 000 registered motor vehicles in 1997 was 1.5. This rate was well below the OECD median of 2.0 and ranked Australia equal sixth best amongst 23 OECD nations.
It might be conjectured that the relatively poor status of motorcycle road safety in Australia stems from differences in the culture of motorcycle use or differences in the road environment but this remains unclear. As discussed below, there is no strong evidence that it stems from more time spent on the road.
Road Transport Safety Implications of Unlicensed Driving
This report documents the findings of a survey of 309 unlicensed driving offenders interviewed at the Brisbane Central Magistrates Court. A wide range of offenders participated in the study including disqualified and suspended drivers, expired licence holders, drivers without a current or appropriate licence, and those who had never been licensed. The results indicate that unlicensed drivers should not be viewed as a homogenous group. Significant differences exist between offender types in terms of their socio-demographic characteristics, whether they were aware of being unlicensed or not, their behaviour while unlicensed, and the factors contributing to their behaviour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)