goldenbeld escape wp4

Working paper 4 (WP3)

Review of enforcement supportsystems in EU countries

The ”Escape” Project

Contract Nº: RO-98-RS.3047

Project Coordinator:

Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT)Communities and Infrastructure

Partners:

Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen (BAST)

Institut national de recherche sur les transports et leur securite (INRETS)Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit (KFV)Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV)

The Institute of Traffic Planning and Traffic Engineering (TUW-IVV)Institute of Transport Economics (TØI)University of Groningen (RUG)

Transport Research Foundation (TRL)Swedish national Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI)Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH)

Centrum Dopravniho Vyzkumu S.A. (CDV)

Authors:

Charles Goldenbeld

Jelle HeidstraTapani MäkinenRainer Christ

Panos PapaioannouJoanna VasiliadouChristhard Gelau

Date:

May 2000

PROJECT FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSIONUNDER THE TRANSPORT RTD PROGRAMME OF THE 4TH

FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

Charles Goldenbeld, Jelle Heidstra,Tapani Mäkinen, Rainer Christ,Panos Papaioannou, Joanna Vasiliadou,Christhard Gelau

Review of enforcement support systems in EU countries

May 2000

3

CONTENTS1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................5

1.1 Aims and contents of the present study ..............................................................5

1.2 Enforcement and deterrence...............................................................................5

1.3 Definition, classification and functions of support systems.................................7

1.4 Research method................................................................................................8

2 KNOWLEDGE, RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ...........................................11

2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................11

2.2 Knowledge and information systems................................................................122.2.1 Information.............................................................................................122.2.2 Monitoring systems.................................................................................132.2.3 Feedback along the roadside ...................................................................15

3 LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATAIVE SUPPORT SYSTEMS ................................16

3.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................16

3.2 Penal systems...................................................................................................17

3.3 Licence withdrawal and point systems .............................................................193.3.1 Applied systems......................................................................................193.3.2 Effectiveness...........................................................................................21

3.4 Rehabilitation of offenders...............................................................................213.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................213.4.2 Rehabilitation measures in the field of alcohol ........................................233.4.3 Rehabilitation measures in the field of speeding......................................273.4.4 Rehabilitation measures in the field of young drivers ..............................29

4 PUBLICITY, MASS MEDIA AND EDUCATION ................................................32

4.1 Publicity and mass media.................................................................................32

4.2 Applied measures.............................................................................................33

5 INTEGRATION OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND SUPPORTSYSTEMS..............................................................................................................35

5.1 Co-ordination and co-operation issues..............................................................35

5.2 International experiences..................................................................................37

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Appendix B: Overview of relevant previous research results



May 2000

5

INTRODUCTION

AIMS AND CONTENTS OF THE PRESENT STUDY

The objectives of the present study (WorkPackage3 -Complementary systems foreffective police enforcement) are:

Describe and compare EU member states regarding the structure and function of legaland administrative support systems relevant to police enforcement . Analyse andcompare systems in terms of complexity, efficiency, flexibility, contributing to orhindering efficient enforcement.

Describe alternatives to conventional police enforcement and how they might apply toreducing non-compliance on a EU-wide scale.

Recommend legal, administrative and non-police based compliance concepts forpossible inclusion in EU demonstration projects.

The results of the Workpackage 3 study will be presented in four consecutivedocuments. In consistency with the EU contract, the documents will be titled as follows:

! Working paper 4 (Wp4): Review of enforcement support systems in EU countries.! Deliverable 4 (D4): Non-police based enforcement! Working paper 5 (Wp5): Workshop on acceptance of new enforcement concepts! Deliverable 5 (D5): Legal and administrative support of enforcement

The present document constitutes working paper 4 (Wp4). A number of the issues athand has been dealt with in previous European projects such as GADGET, MASTER,PROMISING and SARTRE. In each chapter the existing knowledge andrecommendations derived from these projects will be briefly summarised. Subsequently,the results of our own research will be added to the existing body of knowledge andpotential new or supplementary insights will be examined.

ENFORCEMENT AND DETERRENCE

It is generally accepted that traffic law enforcement influences driving behaviourthrough two mechanisms: general deterrence and specific deterrence. Generaldeterrence can be described as the impact of the threat of legal punishment on the publicat large, while specific deterrence can be seen as the impact of actual legal punishmenton those who have been apprehended. Thus, general deterrence results from a



May 2000

6

perception of the public that traffic laws are enforced and that a risk of detection andpunishment exists when traffic laws are violated (Armour, 1984). Specific deterrencearises from actual experiences with detection, prosecution and punishment of convictedoffenders. General and specific deterrence are in fact based on the same underlyingmechanisms, but the populations which they refer to are different. General deterrence isrelevant for those who have not yet undergone sanctions; specific deterrence is relevantfor those who have.

The process of deterrence depends in a large part on how the public perceives andinterprets the sanctioning system (see figure 1.1). In the first place there is an objectivethreat of sanctions for unlawful behaviour. The subjective threat depends on the waythat objective characteristics of sanctions are perceived and, via a process ofinterpretation, are 'translated' into fear. Lastly, the question remains how stronglybehaviour is inhibited by the fear aroused.

Figure 1.1. The process of deterrence through fear (freely adapted from Tittle, 1980).

(1) (2) (3) (4)Threat: Perception Interpretation InhibitionObjective of objective especially Strength ofCharacteristic characteristics translation of the modificationof sanctions of sanctions cognitions of behaviour

into fear through fear

Deterrence, in the narrow sense of the word, includes only one underlying, explanatoryprocess, namely the use of fear of legal consequences. As has been indicated by severalauthors (e.g. Gibbs, 1975; Beyleveld, 1980), more factors or processes than purely thefear of unpleasant legal sanctions play a role in the inhibition of law-breaking or rule-breaking behaviour. There are also other psychological and social processes thatcontribute to deterrence, such as, for example, the fear of social stigmatising thataccompanies punishment. The term 'deterrence' actually indicates many possiblepsychological and social processes. More and more attention is being paid in deterrenceresearch on the role of the personal processes of perception and decision making“.

The various components of a traffic law enforcement system operate in a highlyinterdependent relationship/symbiotic relationship. Police enforcement can only beeffective if it operates in a supportive environment of laws, regulations, and a sensitivepenal system. These combined forces act to create the deterrence effect of policeenforcement, both on the individual level and on society at large (Hakkert, 1994). Theeffectiveness of each single component depends to a large degree upon the operation ofthe other components. Heavy penalties will not impress road users if the chance ofdetection is particularly low. On the other hand, a high chance of detection will be less



May 2000

7

effective if the penalties are perceived to be low or if the penalties are not actually paidby the violators (but for instance by companies). Therefore the total enforcement chainis as strong as the weakest link. The weakness of one link may undermine theeffectiveness of other links.

DEFINITION, CLASSIFICATION AND FUNCTIONS OF

SUPPORT SYSTEMS

In a sense every measure that contributes to safe behaviour on the roads lessens theburden placed on traffic policing. From that perspective, any successful road safetymeasure may be viewed as a support system for police enforcement. In practice, roadsafety measures taken to improve road safety may at the same time both help andcomplicate the work of traffic law enforcement. Any legal road safety measure requiressome additional (new) enforcement effort from the traffic police. Even though themeasure may be quite successful in improving safety behaviour, at the same time trafficpolice has to invest some extra resources into the enforcement of this measure resultingin less resources for other enforcement targets.

The concept of ‘support system’ may have manifold meanings depending upon one’sviews about exactly what needs to be supported. The most direct answer seems to bethat the effectiveness of police enforcement in deterring road users from committingtraffic violations should be supported. Support systems can be distinguished into threecategories:

• Support systems that intend to improve the system by change of the design of thesystem by refining laws, penalties, procedures etc.

• Support systems that directly intend to improve the actual operation of the system(without changing the design)

• Support systems that intend to change how the operation of the system is perceivedby the public and experts.

It can be argued that complementary systems to support police enforcement can help:

• to increase the capacity for detection of traffic violations;

• to help policy makers better informed decisions about the role of police enforcementin road safety policy;

• to help make police management make better informed choices about allocation ofpolicing resources;

• to increase the deterrent effects of police operations in the eye of the general public;

• to increase the specific deterrent effects of penalties on offenders;



May 2000

8

• to increase the active public and political support for police enforcement operationsin traffic.

These functions or possible benefits of police enforcement support systems for roadsafety will provide the framework for this working paper. In the next paragraph adescription of the method used to assess support systems in different EU countries willbe given. From Chapter 2 onwards, the different categories of support systems will bediscussed in the light of their respective purposes and potential benefits for variousaspects of police enforcement and road safety. A variety of examples of support systemsused in different countries and related to the various problem areas, i.e. alcohol, speed,seat belt and young drivers will be described.

RESEARCH METHOD

As a first step in assessing the use of support systems in different EU member states itwas attempted to develop a clear-cut definition of support systems. After consultationwith all workpackage participants the following definition of a support system wasused: “An enforcement support system is a single measure or a set of measures that isused by authorities or bodies in cooperation with authorities directly linked to trafficenforcement operations, to support police enforcement, including legal measures andadjudication. Activities of support systems may be provided as information, regulations,feedback - immediate or delayed - or as punitive measures”. Although in every countrythere are safety education activities and various mass media safety campaigns (many ofwhich address legally correct behaviour), these were not the central focus of the WP.

A distinction was made between general support systems and selective support systems.General support systems were considered to be on a national scale and include forexample: legal measures, measures in the field of licensing, demerit point systems andgeneral safety campaigns. Selective support systems were considered to be selective inspace, time or category of road user. Roughly, these can be divided into incentiveprograms and roadside actions. Table 1.1 can be used to provide an initialsystematisation of support systems.



May 2000

9

Table 1.1 Overview of support systems to make police enforcement more effective andefficient.

General support Selective / specific support

Knowledge andinformation supportsystems

(Monitoring) researchKnow-how of traffic policeEnforcement manuals

Local monitoring systemSpecific local know-how of traffic police

Legal and administrativesupport systems

Penalties / finesAdministrative lawPoint systems

Rehabilitation systemsLicence withdrawalInternal police administration

Internal local police administration

Media and publicitysupport systems

General campaign publicityEnforcement campaign publicitySpecific educative programs

Local enforcement activities publicitySpecific educative programs

Other support systems Insurance policiesTechnological developments

Reward systems

To assess the use of support systems in the different EU member states a questionnaire,based on the idea of a Support System x Problem area matrix was developed in co-operation with all the Escape partners involved in the workpackage. The finalquestionnaire was sent to every partner. Each partner would cover support systems inhis own and in one other EU country. The following examples of support systemsdirectly related to efficiency of operations in the countries were given in thequestionnaire:

• use of research information for planning of enforcement (e.g. monitoring/accidentanalysis programs)

• use of research information for evaluation of enforcement and decision-making• use of research information for publicity purposes• development of knowledge and expertise within police organisation• automated traffic and enforcement knowledge systems• specific infra-structural facilities enabling better enforcement (e.g. road signs)• various technology solutions: alcohol locks, speed-limiters for trucks, seat belt use

warning devices, etc.



May 2000

10

Examples of side-conditions affecting efficiency of enforcement operations given in thequestionnaire were :

• de-merit point systems• training and education programmes (rehabilitation, as far as the time lag with

conviction is small)• feedback systems (other than demerit point systems)• support systems dealing with driver licensing (maintaining or renewing)• support systems dealing with acquiring a driver's licence• condition (age etc.) specific control systems for driving• insurance policies• curfew measures for young drivers

It should be noted, however, that on the one-hand this list was not to be consideredexclusive and that on the other hand only those systems should be included that areactually supportive to police enforcement and not those that are autonomous, self-reliantsystems themselves.

The comparability of workpackages was a desired objective. To satisfactorily maintainthis objective, the areas covered in the workpackage were alcohol, seat belts, speed, andyoung drivers. In case that in one country more support systems would meet the criteriafor inclusion, it was agreed upon that emphasis would be put on those measures that are“widely used”, “relevant”, “promising”, “newly introduced” or “about which goodevidence is available”. For instance, in the case of Germany, the introduction of thepoint system and the enforcement of speeding by non-police (in cities and city-areas)are two of the “widely used”, “relevant”, “promising” and “newly introduced” measuresto complement or support conventional police enforcement. It would make sense then tocover these two measures for Germany. In other European countries other importantdevelopments have occurred. So by completing the questionnaire the focus should be onmajor changes that – presumably - have made a real impact. The following countrieshave been covered in the study: Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain,Greece, Israel, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Thequestionnaire is included in appendix A.



May 2000

11

KNOWLEDGE, RESEARCH ANDINFORMATION

INTRODUCTION

In general, police enforcement may be on three levels of professionalism (Goldenbeld,Jayet, Noordzij and Mäkinen, 1999). The first level may be called ‘ad hoc enforcement’and is characterised by short term operations for a few weeks, mostly on a few, specificlocations with strong emphasis on catching offenders (repressive enforcement). Thesecond level, ‘project-bound enforcement’, is based on longer term planning overseveral months, often covers a certain route or number of locations, is based onexplicitly described aims, and is guided by evaluation efforts. The highest professionalenforcement is ‘planned enforcement’, which covers larger areas (districts orprovinces), is in permanent operation, and is based on area wide-analysis, year plansand thorough evaluation of results. The concept of planned enforcement draws attentionto the pivotal role of information and knowledge that is needed to increase theeffectiveness and efficiency of operations on the streets.

Most reviews that discuss supporting measures focus on measures in the field ofpublicity, legal measures and equipment. In many reviews the role of information andknowledge is not or only briefly discussed. The implicit assumption may be that theinformation and knowledge needed to make good decisions about enforcementactivities, is part of the internal responsibilities/affairs of the police organisation. Sincereviewers are focused on giving recommendations to policy makers they may feel thatareas of responsibility within the police organisation are outside the domain of study. Inthis view, we should not have to concentrate on support systems, which the police itselfshould manage in a professional way. However, the question may be asked to whatextent the burden of planned police enforcement should be carried solely on theshoulders of the police.

In road safety work, it has become a general tenet that the best road safety plans are theresult of a co-operation of several stakeholders in the field of road safety, who shareresources to come up with a planned approach to road safety in a region or city. Thesame tenet has not been applied often in the work of police enforcement. From thetheoretical viewpoint of deterrence theory, police enforcement has been primarilyviewed as a link in the total enforcement process. From this viewpoint it makes a lot ofsense to look for changes within the legal or administrative enforcement system tosupport the effectiveness of police enforcement. This view has been so dominant withinroad safety literature that there has been some neglect to look at support systems forpolice enforcement that may derive from other scientific disciplines, e.g. information,



May 2000

12

communication or planning sciences. In chapter 5 of this document, the role of partnerorganizations will be discussed. In this chapter, we will pay some attention toinformation and knowledge systems. There are several important reasons for doing so:

• The topic of information and knowledge systems as a support for policeenforcement has been somewhat neglected in the research literature;

• New communication technology creates the opportunity for spread of informationand knowledge

• Given scarce resources for police enforcement there is a constant need for fine-tuning and tailoring police enforcement activities to the safety needs of the region,based on dynamic information systems.

So, in most reviews of traffic law enforcement not much attention is given to the role ofinformation and knowledge to steer the planning and execution of enforcementactivities in the streets. In this review we intend to fill this gap in the literature.

KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Information

The following sorts of information are needed to increase the effectiveness andefficiency of police enforcement:

• use of information for planning of enforcement (e.g. monitoring/research/accidentanalysis programs)

• use of information for evaluation of enforcement and decision-making• use of information for publicity purposes• development of knowledge and expertise within police organisation• automated traffic and enforcement knowledge systems

Use of information for planning of enforcement

In the Netherlands, the Public Prosecutor’s Office plays in important role in stimulatingand supporting police enforcement operations in the field of speeding, drinking-and-driving, seat-belt use, use of helmets by moped riders and motor-cyclists. The PublicProsecutor’s office intends to double or treble the enforcement intensity by agreeingwith the regional police forces on plans for extra enforcement of speeding and otherviolations over and above the routine enforcement. The additional enforcement is oftenperformed by a team of police officers, who are specifically contracted to work full-timefor the enforcement project (e.g. one co-ordinator and 5 or 6 field workers)



May 2000

13

In the Netherlands, the region-wide planning of speed enforcement is based on acomparison of the number of accidents in a three-year period, on the few hundred 3-5km long provincial road stretches in the region. Based on this information, a list of the20 to 30 most dangerous road stretches is made and the enforcement is concentrated onthese road stretches.

Use of information for evaluation of enforcement and decision-making

If enforcement is only planned as a routine activity, there is no need for immediateinformation on the effectiveness of enforcement, since a routine can be simply carriedout without further reflection. Given scarce resources of traffic police, the police shouldfocus activities on times, locations and road users that offer the highest chance ofchanging behaviours or deterring traffic violations. From this viewpoint, it makes a lotof sense to take a periodical stock of results brought about by police enforcementactivities.

Use of information for publicity purposes

In every review on police enforcement, the importance of combining enforcement andpublicity is clearly stated. However, most reviews are not very explicit how publicityshould be carried out to increase the effectiveness of police enforcement.

Mass media communications can serve several purposes that may be relevant to policeenforcement:

• create climate for change/set public agenda;• increase perceived risk of crash involvement;• increase perceived risk of police detection;• provide justification for the enforcement role of the police;• provide information that assists in public decision-making.

Monitoring systems

If we consider monitoring or evaluation as a support system, there should be clarityabout quantitative targets. These targets should be set by policy makers and police andresearchers should work together to advise on which quantitative targets are realisticand ambitious. The first problem in target setting is that national targets may not be veryrelevant for regional conditions. So, very likely, targets for evaluation have to be set ona regional level, based on regional problem-analysis.

Second, after the quantitative targets have been set, police should work out anenforcement strategy to achieve these targets and police/ researchers together should



May 2000

14

agree on the monitoring system that is needed. Records of police activities (e.g. manhours spent on speed checks, or number of registered alcohol offenders) may be used asone kind of input to evaluate police effectiveness, but experience shows that thesepolice records are often not available, reliable, systematic, or relevant enough forobjective monitoring purposes. Therefore a separate research instrument or monitoringinstrument should be developed. Experience in Netherlands, Finland and France hasshown the importance of yearly roadside surveys of drinking-and-driving. This survey isimportant in three ways:

• It shows development of drinking-and-driving over time and shows whether thetarget has been reached. Moreover, the results are used -in publicity - to sharpenpolitical, public and police awareness of the development of this problem.

• It shows regional variation in the problem so that the regional targets may bere-fined.

• The close co-operation between police and researchers often results in very helpful,specific recommendations to improve enforcement operations in the field. In thefifteenth year tradition of Dutch research in drinking-and-driving manyrecommendations have been given to the central Dutch government on how to takemeasures to improve police operations in the streets. These recommendations haveincluded the use of equipment, organisation of police resources, legal aspects of thepolice competence in handling violators etc.

A third point we would like to make is, that we should distinguish between threedifferent objectives of evaluation/monitoring:

1. Simple project level/often short term: Fast, simple indication of behaviour change(to be used in publicity). Gets fast results; not too scientific.

2. Local level, short term: A more refined analysis of behaviour change (but noaccident evaluation). Is more scientific.

3. National/provincial level/ longer term: Longer term (multivariate) analysis ofbehaviour change in combination with accident analysis and separation of effect ofdifferent factors. This has been done in Australia (Cameron et al., 1992).

Also the terms evaluation (product/process evaluation), monitoring (regularstandardised measurement) and research (involving different conditions) should beclearly distinguished. They overlap to some extent, but have clearly different meanings.

It is clear that in the most simple type of evaluations the researchers can play a minorrole, whereas in refined evaluations the researcher plays a very important role. Oftenevaluation is best when different kinds of practitioners can give input (police co-ordinator, project leader, researchers).



May 2000

15

Feedback along the roadside

If we apply a broad definition to the concept of information, then the supply ofinformation along the road can also be regarded as information. There is good evidencethat feedback techniques which provide drivers with information about their owndriving speeds, presented individually or collectively, by posted message signs, reducesspeed by themselves (Van Houten and Nau 1980, Casey and Lund, 1993, Muskaug andChristensen, 1995). Warning signs announcing “police speed check area” followed bypolice enforcement have established time halo effects on average speed of nine weeksafter enforcement withdrawal (Holland and Conner, 1996).

With respect to speed enforcement in built up areas, the following possibilities areimportant. Drivers can be made aware of the set speed limit with static or dynamicwarning signs. Static signs show a fixed text; dynamic signs light up only in response tospeeding offenders (also referred to as electronic speed influencer). Dynamicinformation systems can offer an important aid in learning how speed should be adaptedto circumstances, such as a traffic jam, fog, slippery conditions, school hours or achange in the type of road surface.

Static warning signs only have a brief effect on driving speed, if at all. Dynamicwarning signs have more effect, particularly if it is indicated why a lower speed isrequired at that location. Apart from finding support for this method in internationalliterature, this was also confirmed in experiments conducted in the Netherlands thatwere preceded by a publicity campaign:

• on roads in the vicinity of a school in The Hague, where 3 types of signs weresuccessively tested, the average speed dropped most with the dynamic signs whereonly offenders were warned (drop in speed of 5 km/h). The system was not studiedto determine long term effects (Oei, 1988);

• at an intersection in the province of Friesland, where the speed limit on the ruralroad was lowered (80 to 70 km/h locally and the road users were first warned with astatic, and then a dynamic sign, the V85 of 96 km/h dropped to approximately 70km/h. This effect proved to be still in force one year after introduction of the system(Oei, 1994).



May 2000

16

LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATAIVESUPPORT SYSTEMS

INTRODUCTION

From the GADGET WP5-review it was learned that traffic law is in most EU countrieslargely part of criminal law. While this seems appropriate in view of the very seriousconsequences violations of traffic law may have in terms of injury and death, it doespose severe constraints on the evidentiary and judiciary procedures. The requirement ofproportionality limits the policing effort that can be allocated to detection of violations.Evidentiary requirements exclude many simple and efficient policing techniques.Judiciary procedures can allow those suspected extensive appeal procedures that maytake years and a disproportionate effort for police and courts. While this may beappropriate for exceptionally serious traffic offences or crimes, it is hardly possible toprocess the myriad of minor violations without making a devastating demand onpolicing manpower or clogging the court procedures.

For this reason, several EU countries have experimented with and, in part, implementedlaws that allow traffic regulation infringements to be treated under civil law withaccompanying simplification of procedures and possibilities of appeal. At first, this hasbeen applied to parking violations but is now being extended to other traffic violationsthat are committed on a regular basis. In the Netherlands, this change from criminal tocivil law has resulted in a drastic decrease of appeal cases and of cases being droppedbecause of errors in evidentiary procedures. Such a change is thought to be a majorissue in improving the efficacy of police surveillance. In some other countries, includingGreat Britain and Israel, the approach taken differs. While the offences in questionremain part of the criminal code, they are none-the-less treated in a mostlyadministrative way. Such is the practice in Great Britain with the Fixed Penalty Noticesgiven to violators of automatic speed and red light cameras.

In sum, legal and administrative systems may be regarded as a crucial factor in the(functioning of) an enforcement system as a whole. These systems however, widelyvary among European countries, which makes it difficult to make a good and relevantcomparison between them. Because of their complex nature, a more comprehensivediscussion and analysis of these legal and administrative systems will be given in aseparate document, being Deliverable 5 (D5). Chapter seven of this document providesa description of the general complexity to compare between systems.



May 2000

17

PENAL SYSTEMS

In the GADGET project WP5, an extensive listing of penal systems in differentEuropean countries has been made. A descriptive example of regarding a penalprocedure as a support system for police enforcement can be found in the Netherlands

The introduction of an administrative law enforcement system in the Netherlands haslead to a workload shift from the police and the offices of the prosecution of the countycourts to the direction of the Central Judicial Collecting Agency, a division of the PublicProsecutors office. This has the advantage that traffic violations are no longer the taskof the already overloaded divisions of the police and justice systems, which have next totraffic violations also a lot of other priorities, but a task of a centralised and specialisedinstitution, namely the Central Judicial Collecting Agency. The implementation ofparking taxation on paid parking has resulted in the fact that a substantial part of thelight traffic violations (fifteen to twenty percent) are not longer dealt with by the policeand justice institutions but by the local governments.

Using empirical data, Onneweer (1997) studied the effects of the administrativeenforcement of traffic regulations (Act Mulder and parking tax system) on the attitudesand behaviours of civilians. Comparisons were made between attitudes and behavioursbefore and after the implementation of the administrative system. Four aspects wereinvestigated: 1) payment of traffic fines, 2) making use of the legal protection systemsby offenders, 3) traffic behaviour and 4) the acceptance of the new system of traffic lawenforcement.

With regard to the payment of penalties for traffic offences, traffic violators wereconfronted with a number of changes under the new administrative regime. Remindersof payments are issued sooner, the actual time for payment has become shorter andalready in a very short time the state can act towards reimbursement of costs andtowards means of coercion. Furthermore, the percentage of non-reclaimable fines wasreduced from fourteen to seven percent. Also, the actual possibility of former times thata violator did not have to pay due to non-acting on the fine (not paying and notprotesting) was reduced to virtually nil. All this resulted in an actual attitudeimprovement towards paying the fines. The willingness to pay on the first noticeincreased from 76 percent to 85 percent.

In Dutch criminal law the case would appear in front of the judge automatically by non-acting of the fined person, whereas in administrative law within six weeks the finedperson has to take initiative himself for law protection making use of the objection orappeal procedure. Moreover the appeal procedure is somewhat more cumbersome inthat a written appeal is required that it can be sent to the Officer of Justice only. Not



May 2000

18

surprisingly, it has been established that under Mulder law people are less taken towardscomplaining than under criminal law.

Regarding the possible deterrent effect of the new traffic law enforcement there hasbeen no proof for an increase in general deterrence. Between 1991 and 1995 theattitudes of the Dutch public concerning traffic violations and traffic in general haveremained unchanged. Despite the possible effects of rapidity and assurance of penaltieson deterrence, the non-occurence of a larger deterrent effect of the Mulder law verylikely is to be ascribed to the exceptional small chance to be caught for a trafficviolation: it is estimated that at utmost one in three thousand Dutch offenders is caught.The only category of traffic violations in which since the seventies there is a relativelyhigh chance to be caught at – in 1995 around one percent – is parking violations. Theenforcement of parking violations seemed to have a larger impact on the attitude oftraffic participants than traffic enforcement in general.

An important indicator of the public acceptance of the new administrative system is thewillingness to pay the tickets without delay or lodging appeals. A large majority ofdrivers pays fines without making any difficulties or going to court. For instance, in1995 85% of all drivers who received a fine paid immediately. After receiving twoadmonitions this percentage was 95.5% (=95.5% of all drivers who received a fine paidimmediately or after having received one or two admonitions). On the other side, thereis some resentment among part of the Dutch car drivers about being financially ‘milked’by the Government, enforcement being one of several milking methods. In differentsurvey research it was found however that there is a large majority support among roadusers in the Netherlands for intensive speed enforcement and for harsh penalties forsevere offenders.

The public acceptance of the new, administrative traffic law system was evaluated byOnneweer (1997). She concluded that a large majority of the Dutch public did not seemto have any difficulty with what amounted to a tougher policy for offenders who do notpay their fines. Most Dutch people think it an improvement in comparison with the oldsituation, and pay their fines on time. The fact that it is not made easy for offenders whodo not pay very likely appeals to this majority group. Also the public does not mind thatif people do not agree with the fine, they have to take action themselves through theintroduction of objection and appeal.

For further information about penal system related issues is referred to the GADGETreport.



May 2000

19

LICENCE WITHDRAWAL AND POINT SYSTEMS

Applied systems

Very likely the strongest deterrent effect of police enforcement may result from publicperception of the likelihood that an accumulation of traffic violations results in awithdrawal of the licence. Table B1 (Appendix B) summarises the information gatheredon licence suspension and point systems in European countries. Most point- and licencewithdrawal systems are embedded in the general legislative system and are notexclusively related to one specific offence area, e.g. speeding or alcohol. Therefore, nospecific breakdown will be made for the various problem areas in this paragraph.Almost all European countries have some legal provision that allows for licencesuspension when the speed limit has been grossly exceeded. A notable exception isPoland. In France, Hungary, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland and Czech Republic it ispossible to have the licence suspended for violations between 20 and 31 km/hrs.Similarly, most countries allow for licence suspension in the case of driving while overthe alcohol limit.

In Finland, roughly about 50 % of drunk drivers are recurrent drunk drivers; so they arecaught for a second time at the minimum (cases of more 100 arrests have beenrecorded) or they have a drinking problem. For this reason and due the EU-directive91/439/ETY the police is entitled to require a proof from the driver who has beenarrested for drunken driving or driving under the influence of narcotic drugs or has beenarrested from drunkenness in a public place (several times) that he is not any moredependant on alcohol or drugs. This means that the driver has to provide the police witha doctor's (specialised in alcoholism and drug treatment) statement that he is no moredependant on alcohol or drugs to get a licence or to renew it. The rules are as follows:

The driver having a short-term driving licence:

• If he/she has been arrested once for drunken driving (so after the first arrest) adoctor´s (a specialist in alcohol and drugs)) statement is needed that the driver is notdependant on alcohol or drugs for the driver to renew (getting back) the licence helost due to drink driving.

• If he/she has been arrested in the course of the past year at least twice during a sixmonths period for public drunkenness (so not driving but being "too" drunk on apublic place) again the doctor's statement is needed for keeping the licence.

• If the driver can be generally assessed of being an abuser of alcohol or usingnarcotic drugs so that she can be regarded a traffic risk at the wheel, a driving bancan be imposed on him. Again, to regain his licence he has to prove the ability to



May 2000

20

drive a car safely through a statement issued by a medical doctor specialized inalcohol and drugs.

The driver having a regular licence:

After having been arrested for the second time for drunk driving in course of three yearsa medical doctor's (specialist) statement is needed for the driver to renew his licenceafter the driving ban is over.

• If the driver has been caught (at any occasion on foot or else) under the influence ofnarcotic drugs, the statement is also needed for the driver to regain or to keep hislicence.

• If he/she has been arrested in the course of the past year at least three times during asix months period for public drunkenness (so, not driving but being "too" drunk on apublic place) again the doctor's statement is needed for keeping the licence.

• If the driver can be generally assessed of being an abuser of alcohol or usingnarcotic drugs so that he can be regarded a traffic risk at the wheel, a driving bancan be imposed on him. Again, to regain him licence she has to prove the ability todrive a car safely through a statement issued by a medical doctor specialized inalcohol and drugs.

Vehicle Administration is responsible for licence maintenance and is also informing thelicence holder of the status of his licence and the steps necessary to renew or regain thelicence. There is no specific information about the costs but as an ADP-based system itis not very expensive. In principle, the system seems a good approach since it aims atcontrolling the use of alcohol of those caught for DWI. It is also a selective systemgiving the right to drive to those people who obviously have changed their drinkinghabits. The expected effects of the system are positive but no good follow-up studies arein progress.

As can be seen in Appendix B, the following countries have point systems in regard totraffic violations: France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, United Kingdom andPoland. Among this group, France and Poland were the latest to introduce such asystem. France started a point system in July 1992 and Poland in June 1993. There issome information about the rules of the point systems in different countries.

In France the accumulation of 12 points can lead to licence suspension. Points can bereturned if a drivers drives for a period of three years without receiving additional pointsor if the driver participates in specific training. In Germany, the accumulation of 18points in two years will lead to licence suspension. The number of points depends onspecific violations (minimum 1, maximum 7). An extensive overview of the Germanpoint system is given in Appendix B. In Greece a licence withdrawal can be expected if



May 2000

21

18 points are collected during a period of two years. In Italy two transgressions withintwo years may lead to licence withdrawal.

In the United Kingdom a licence will be suspended if the driver receives more than 12points over a three year period. The points are flexible depending on violation, but theminimum for a speeding violation is three points.

In Poland there are flexible points for the 45 most important offences, ranging from 1 to10 points. If 21 points are accumulated in one year, the driving exam must be passedagain. If the driver fails the exam the licence is suspended. If there are less than 21points after one year, all points are cancelled and the driver may drive into the new yearwith a green slate/a clean record.

In Finland, there is no point system as such, but a driver who receives more than 3speeding tickets in 12 months or more than 4 in 24 months, will have his licencesuspended. In Portugal there is no formal point system either, but something muchresembling it. A driving licence may be withdrawn by court if a driver convicted threetimes for very serious or five times for serious offences in three years. To recover his orher driving licence the user must pass a new driving test.

Effectiveness

The scientific evidence for a strong deterrent effect of point systems in general is scarce.A demerit point system, increased penalties for recidivism, possibility of confiscatingthe car or withdrawal of the driving licence, etc. can be assumed to enlarge the effect ofenforcement on speed behaviour (Oei, 1998). However, often no information is given inthe literature regarding these aspects, making comparison between research resultsrather difficult.

Again, even after the present review and the additional information collected for theparticipating countries, on the basis of the available evidence, the overall conclusionremains the same, i.e. at present it is not possible to show in quantitative terms howpoint systems support police enforcement.

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS

Introduction

Licensing systems are characterised more and more by a combination of education andenforcement strategies (graduated licensing systems, combination of probationary andprovisional systems). Therefore, it is necessary to design enforcement strategies for



May 2000

22

novice drivers. Particularly in the field of rehabilitation of drinking-and-drivingoffenders, a lot of experience has been gained. In this paragraph some of the mainlessons from the project GADGET, in which this field was studied, will be summed up.

Up to now, the evaluation of Driver Improvement (DI) measures to change delinquentbehaviour and attitudes, using an epidemiological assessment model, has not yieldedunambiguous and unanimous results. However, significant changes have been reportedin statistics concerning education and public health models. One of the advantages of DIresearch is that it provides references for optimising programmes and their assessmentswith a view to improved road safety:

a) There is a need to refer to psychological theories about changing attitudes andbehaviour for determining objectives that can be measured, identified and controlled.Efficient programmes are based on conceptual fields and the application of the maincurrents of psychology (especially for alcohol-related offences). However, there is nosingle dominant approach: research has engendered some certainties, but the field stillremains to be explored and more and more experiments are being conducted.

b) There is a need to ensure that DI programmes are high level. The "DriverImprovement Workshops" of 1993 in Switzerland and in Germany (BAST, 1998)underlined the need to intensify and co-ordinate three levels:

• feeding into DI programmes the results of research on road safety and psychologicaltheories on behavioural change and evaluative theories,

• creating a structured organisation and legal basis for courses• training and monitoring the moderators.

According to some authors, this guarantee of training quality, recruitment for diagnosticpurposes and DI should be provided with a legal basis at the European level.

c) There is a need to consider DI as a dynamic and progressive system embodyingprocedures of correction and self-correction. DI should be optimised by means of:

• an in-depth analysis of the intermediary processes for making diagnoses andassigning drivers to appropriate, tailor-made programmes.

• development of an iterative approach to maximise the ability of DI measures to caterfor the needs of drivers.

This can only be done through strict research assessment that allows the best adaptationof a programme to drivers' particular sets of problems. All DI measures should beconceived as models that include interview techniques, group techniques circumscribed



May 2000

23

by penalties, with each measure having its function and role at a given moment and fora given set of infringement problems.

d) There is a need to view DI as a systemic approach. This North-American viewpoint islargely shared by German speaking countries, which do not focus their efforts solely ona high-risk group but position infringement prevention in a broader system of preventivemeasures that include legislation and regulation (alcohol level, speed limits, control-penalty system, driver training, general road safety education and public informationcampaigns) (Huguenin, 1979 ; Kroj, 1981). The penalty-education relationship is notmeant in terms of exclusion but in terms of complementarity, and preventive measures,both general and punitive, should be and can be better exploited.

e) Further research and broader applications would be useful for compiling data andfiles on offenders and data on young victims of the road ( care, therapies, specifictraining of moderators etc) and enable comparisons between the countries to be made,the general aim being to assess different DI models.“

In several EU-countries, rehabilitation programmes supportive to police enforcementare applicated. In the next paragraphs an overview is given of the experiences with thesesystems in different problem areas and countries. However, in general it should bestressed that rehabilitation systems cannot be assessed without considering the processof legislation, enforcement and rehabilitation as a whole. For instance, success at thelevel of the individual driver largely depends on the validity and reliability of themedical-psychological test which has to be undergone in advance of the measure, andthe quality of its results.

Rehabilitation measures in the field of alcohol

In the Netherlands, on June 1st 1996 a new legal measure was adopted in theNetherlands to give alcohol-offenders in the Netherlands the opportunity to choosebetween traditional punishment (fine or invalidation of licence) or attending aeducational course on the risks of drinking-and-driving. The Educative Measure forAlcohol offences (EMA) course is focused on giving extra instruction to drivers, whohave been driving under the influene of alchohol. It is assumed that these drivers lack asufficient (mental/motivational) capacity to drive a motor vehicle and that extra trainingmay correct for this lack. The ultimate aim of the educational course is to create thenecessary conditions for a positive behavioural change amongst the course participants,resulting in the active avoidance of the combination of drinking and driving.

The Division Requisitions (Bureau Vorderingen) of the Dutch Licencing Bureau (CBR)is empowered on behalf of the Minister of Transport and Waterworks to impose an



May 2000

24

EMA-course on an offender. If the offender chooses not to follow the course within acertain period of time, his or her licence will be automatically invalidated. In the past,imposition of this course was done within the criminal law framework. In the new legalset-up imposition of this course is done within administrative law. Also, within the newframework, the offender has to pay for the costs of following the course himself. (Thecosts are 500 Dutch guilders or about 220 Euro).

Drivers can be required to attend the EMA-course when the following conditions aremet:

! The BAC is higher than 1,3 promille but not higher than 2,1 promille! There is recidivism where the last violation has been found to be a BAC above 0,8

promille.

Contraindications are:

! Offender has caused fatal or heavy injury! Offender has severe psychiatric problems! Offender suffers from dementia! Offender has insufficient knowledge of Dutch language! Offender has already participated in the course within the five pat years.

Within the EMA course the central theme is the incompatibility of alcohol use andparticpation in traffic. The course tries to change attitudes in this respect through thedevelopment of knowledge, insight and new skills of handling social situations.Compared to the old course before 1996, the new course requires a more activecommitment from the participants and, besides knowledge and insight extra attention isgiven to the emotional component of the problematic behaviour and behaviouralchange. In table 3, a description of the Dutch EMA-course, an alternative sanction forserious alcohol offenders who have shown problematic behaviour in traffic is given.(Derived from Vissers and van ‘t Hoff, 1998).



May 2000

25

Table 3.1 Description of the Dutch EMA-course

Contents first course day Contents second course day Contents third course day

• Introduction

• Acquaintance

• Knowledge questionnaire

• The use of alcohol in theNetherlands

• The effects of alcohol in thebody

• Alcohol and driving ability

• Alcohol in traffic: theconsequences

• Rounding off

• Opening

• Drinking-and-driving: legalconsequences

• Drinking and driving:licencing consequences

• Drinking-and-driving: therole of habit

• Alcohol-problems anddrinking-and-driving

• Rounding off

• Opening

• Drinking-and-driving: whatcan I do about it?

• Imitation of life: anexercise

• The future: intentions,pitfalls and deeds

• Evaluation and end

During the course the risks of drinking-and-driving are brought to the light. By way of amore active group-oriented, interpersonal approach an attempt is being made to bringabout a conviction that drinking-and-driving is personally and socially unacceptablebecause of the inherent dangers. By way of exercises like self-observation and role-playit is attempted to let participants gain insight into the determinants of their problematicbehaviour and to experience possibilities to engage in alternative (safe) behaviour.

There has been a recent evaluation research into the effects of following the course onattitudes, knowledge and behavioural intentions of offenders (Vissers, van ‘t Hoff,1998). The EMA was evaluated by a questionnaire research where the responses fromEMA-course participants were measured before and after the course and compared withbefore and after measures with a (quasi-)control group of offenders, who have beensubject to the invalidation procedure of driving licence, but who have not (yet)participated in the EMA-course. The major results of the evaluation study are thefollowing: The EMA-course clearly improves knowledge about the effects of alcoholwithin the human body and the relationships between alcohol use and accidentlikelihood. Also the attitude towards drinking-and-driving of the problem-drivers shiftsin the desired direction. After following the EMA-course the problem-drivers reportbetter behavioural intentions concerning the avoidance of drinking-and-driving.However, the same trend towards better behavioural intentions was also found, be it insomewhat lesser extent in the control-group.

In Germany, during the seventies the main reasons to adopt a rehabilitation system forconvicted alcohol-impaired drivers and to spend efforts for its further development wereexperiences and observations made by psychologists who were active in the field of



May 2000

26

driver improvement. They found again and again that traditional programmes relying onconcepts like driving knowledge, risk-acceptance or danger cognition were simplyineffective for drivers who were repeatedly convicted for driving under the influence ofalcohol. So it was reasoned that these drivers would constitute a special group and thatthe problems, which have to be solved by means of rehabilitation are unique as well, i.e.the attitudes towards drinking and driving as well as their alcohol consumption andrelated habits in general. So the expected effects were a substantial reduction of"repeating offenders" against DWI legislation.

The implementation of rehabilitation programmes is a matter of the German FederalStates and their authorities. In practice this means that there are certain bodies (e.g.TÜV, DEKRA, AFN etc.), who carry out rehabilitation programmes. But which of thecourses offered (e.g. LEER, I.R.A.K., NAFA, ALFA etc., c.f. Spoerer et al., 1994) aremandatory and/or lead to a renewal of the driving licence depends on the legislation ineach Federal State and the decision of the local authorities. Generally it can only be saidthat there are two parties involved, i.e. the bodies, who provide rehabilitationprogrammmes (e.g. TÜV) and the authorities responsible for licence administration.Rehabilitation programmes which are acknowledged by authorities have to be evaluatedunder the supervision of BASt. Although there are are many local differences thegeneral process can be described as follows:

! Conviction of a driver for DWI.

! If BAC measured is at least 0,16% (in some cases 0,2%), or if the driver has beenrepeatedly convicted with a lower BAC the driver has to undergo a medical-psychological test by order of the authorities when he/she requests the renewal ofhis/her licence.

! As a result of this investigation a rehabilitation measure can be recommended by theinvestigation team (i.e. mediciner and a psychologist). Authorities decide if theyaccept this recommendation or not and demand from the driver to undergo anacknowledged rehabilitation programme.

! If the driver complies and participates at a rehabilitation programme and receives acertification his/her licence will be renewed.

! Generally all costs have to be covered by the convicted drivers themselves.

In Austria, Driver improvement for alcohol offenders has been a tradition since theseventies. It was first offered for people who were imprisoned for having killed orinjured somebody when driving under the influence of alcohol. A couple of years laterthis measure was extended to drivers convicted for drunk driving more than once.However, it was for the licensing authorities to decide if a driver was compelled toattend such a driver improvement course. An evaluation study focusing on this very



May 2000

27

clientele showed that the recidivism rate could be markedly lowered if an offenderattended such group sessions (people who attended these sessions had half therecidivism rate compared to offenders who did not). Since November 1st, 1997,Austrian drivers who are convicted for an alcohol offence of over 1,2‰, must attend amandatory psychological retraining, beside suspension of their driving licence. SinceJanuary 1st 1992, novice drivers must attend the A-Kurs, a psychological follow-uptraining after drunk driving (0,1‰-limit). The courses have a clear legal basis, privateorganisations (who have to meet special standards) are approved to conductrehabilitation courses. The psychological retraining is offered in group settings.Licensing authorities demand the offender to bring a certificate (for attending therehabilitation measure) from an institute which is certified to offer these or courses (elselicence is withdrawn or reissue is refused). Offenders have to pay for the measurethemselves. Comprehensive evaluation studies indicate that the recidivism rate ofoffenders participating in such a course can be lowered for 50% compared to a controlgroup consisting of offenders without this treatment. Since 1996, a similar DI programis implemented in german speaking parts of Switzerland. The french speaking parts willfollow in the next years (from 2000). An overview of rehabilitation programmes whichare common practice in Germany, Austria and Switzerland is provided by Spoerer et al.(1994).

In Finland, Greece, Israel and Portugal, no mandatory rehabilitation-, training- oreducation programmes are applied to drunk drivers currently. In Finland, there has beena lot of discussion of the need for rehabilitation for those caught repeatedly for drunkdriving, but so far it has not led to any measures in this respect. In the instructions forthe medical doctors (Oppaita: 1998:6) drawn by the ministry of health only recommendsthe doctors to "motivate" those found having a drinking problem when renewing thelicence "to seek for treatment". The doctors are also instructed to "help in arranging thetreatment".

There is an experiment going on for the rehabilitation of repeaters. The main reason (forthe experiment) is that in Finland repeating offenders are problem drinkers and theirproblem can not be solved by traditional deterrence (high risk of being caught andimpending punishments). Other supporting measures are needed. Unfortunately, theauthorities are rather slow in adopting new measures. There are plans to have moreindividually tailored programmes, but so far, these will be only on a voluntary basis.

Rehabilitation measures in the field of speeding

In Austria, Psychological driver testing can be applied to drivers who were convictedfor severe offences like extreme speeding. However, compared to alcohol offences, thisis rarely administered, possibly because it is dependant on judgement of the authority



May 2000

28

how to proceed with repeated speeding offenders. No strict procedure is determined bylaw like in alcohol cases. Also driver improvement for speed offenders is administeredvery rarely. The implementation is the same as with testing and rehabilitation of alcoholoffenders. It is foreseen that this system might become more important if penalty pointsystem will be introduced. The opinion however is that psychological testing andrehabilitation methods could be applied much more to speed-offenders. These offencesare often not perceived in their severeness, sometimes offences result from personalitydisorders which also ask for psychological treatment. Deliberate use of thesepsychological measures could support the public reflection of traffic rules and socialacceptance of speed limits. High programme standards again are necessary, as withmeasures concerning alcohol offenders. In Switzerland, DI courses for speed offenders,have been carried out as a general deterrence measure since the 1970s. However, nospecific information on these measure has come avalable within this study. A specificdeterrence sanction system as a feature of 2-phase driver training model is underdiscussion.

A comparable level of activities concerning speed related rehabilitation is reported inFinland. There has been little activities in terms of rehabilitation and trainingprogrammes, mainly because speeding is not seen as a disease. On the other hand, interms of winter traffic and above all the preparing drivers for correct speed forconditions, there have been systematic training courses arranged by the CentralOrganisation for Traffic Safety (Liikenneturva). However, this is a border line casewhether it can be associated with a support measure for traffic enforcement. Currently,research on the effects of 40 km/h speed limits on driving speeds and accidents is goingon.

In the Netherlands, no wide-scale rehabilitation of speed offenders is implemented yet.Mainly because of the fundamental change of the legislative system (from criminal toadministrative “Mulder” law, see the section about legal systems) and the wide-scaleimplementation of automated speed enforcement system, there has been an enormousincrease in the annual number speeding tickets issued and a shift from driver detectionto vehicle detection. For instance, in 1998 more than 97% of all 3.421.758 speedingtickets were issued on the basis of vehicle registration number detection. The driverscommitting these violations were not identified. Only more severe (speeding) violations,are still processed under criminal law, requiring driver identification. Sincerehabilitation programmes focus on influencing drivers’ opinions, beliefs and attitudes,a legislative system in which only the vehicle number is identified, is not suitable forthese sort of measures.

Within the possiblities of the criminal law, a rehabilitation experiment was carried outin the court district of Amsterdam. Drivers who had exceeded the speed limit with more



May 2000

29

than 30 km/h in the district’s built up areas, could receive a 200 guilder (91 euro)reduction on their fine by voluntarily attending a three hour educative program. Thecourse focused on changing the drivers’ behavioural beliefs, attitudes, subjective normand perceived control over one’s own behaviour in relation to speeding in built-upareas. In a before-after evaluation survey it was found that those drivers who hadattended the course reported a slight but significantly greater improvement regardingmost of these aspects, than those who had deliberateley chosen to pay the intial amountor had not been invited to the course at all (Brouwer and Heidstra, 1998). In spite of thisand other promising experiments associated with rehabilitation systems in the area ofspeeding, the constitution of the traffic law seems, for the time being, to prevent wide-scale implementation in the Netherlands. In Greece and Portugal, no specific activitiesconcerning rehabilitation of speed offenders were reported in the present study.

Rehabilitation measures in the field of young drivers

In Austria, in 1992 a package of measures came into force for young drivers - licenceon probation as well as rehabilitation programs and group courses for novice driverswere installed. Within the first two years (probation period) the alcohol limit for novicedrivers is 0.01 BAC and within the probation period certain offences lead to theobligation to attend the psychological group courses as a rehabilitation measure.

Alcohol offences require courses which are much like the traditional driverimprovement courses for alcohol offenders (however, novices have to attend after thefirst offence and the violation of the 0,01 limit is an offence already - see alcoholsection). The developed concept of group courses, a combination of personalexperience, group discussions and information is also applied to the young trafficoffenders. The (first) violation of specific traffic rules - like exceeding speed limits (20km/h in built up areas, 40 km/h in rural areas and on motorways), hit and run accidents,driving in the wrong direction, not giving right of way, overtaking where not permitted,causing an accident where somebody is injured, running red and amber traffic lights -results in compulsory attendance of a group course for traffic offenders.

The course setting is as follows:

! 6 to 10 attendants per group! all sessions chaired by a specially trained psychologist! 4 sessions each lasting 3 hours! between the first and the second sessions participation in a driving-lesson together

with other participants and a specially trained driving instructor! driving instructor is present in the second session to give feed-back and discuss

issues arising from the driving observation.



May 2000

30

This Austrian concept is unique. Mandatory courses are also offered in Germany,however, the concept and the philosophy is partly different (see also Apendix B). TheGerman model is characterised by a school based curriculum and all sessions areconducted by driving instructors. The Austrian concept is also quite different fromtraining specific skills which is offered on a voluntary basis in many countries. Incontrast to the two-phase concepts of driver training which address all novice drivers,the Austrian concept only subjects offenders to a ”Nachschulung” (the term used inAustria for these Driver Improvement courses for novice drivers). The intention of theAustrian group courses is that the participants should gain insight into dangerousbehaviour and specific risks in traffic. They should reflect their own habits and thusshould improve their attitudes to traffic risk and develop clear strategies on how to adaptbetter to the rules and necessities in traffic. The goals and contents of the course can bewell illustrated using a structure proposed by Hatakka et.al. (1997).

Table 3.2 Structure and goals in driver training (according to Hatakka et.al. 1997)

Knowledge and skills risk increasing factors self evaluation

Goals for living

Goals fordriving

Mastery

Manoeuvring

The authors mention that traditional driver training starts with the teaching of basicmanoeuvring skills and knowledge (bottom left cell of the table). Depending on theconcept and the intention of the course mastery of traffic situations is also trained insome countries, risk factors may be discussed and self evaluation may be part of drivereducation. The authors conclude that the upper sections and the second and thirdcolumns are often neglected in driver education. According to this structure the Austriandriver improvement measures are an attempt to address the higher levels of behaviour(goals for driving and goals for living) and the contents of the courses focus on riskincreasing factors on the basis of self evaluation. This clear psychological approachfocusing on attitudes is based on the assumption that in most cases accidents of youngdrivers result from misperception of risk and unfavourable attitudes. The ways toachieve the intended results of this measure are group discussions on traffic relatedtopics, but also on personal issues like handling everyday problems, goals in life, thepersonal importance of mobility and of a car. Of course, also information is provided inthis type of course.

The effects of the course were assessed in an evaluation study. Three different measurewere chosen:



May 2000

31

! attitude changes have been measured by comparing attitude questionnaires beforeand after participating in the group course,

! every individual attendant was assessed according to various scales (5-point rating)after the course by the psychologist,

! concerning the driver record after the course recidivism data have been collected forthe remaining probation period (average observation period of more than 2 years).

Data on the participant, the group course, attitude changes and assessment by apsychologist were available for 989 subjects. This evaluation study showed that novicedrivers convicted for severe traffic violations can gain benefit from the mandatorypsychological driver improvement course which is imposed by Austrian law. Thepsychological intervention concept has proved to be useful. Especially a broaderpsychological approach dealing with habits and life style has show favourable results.No evidence has been found that a focus on knowledge- and skill related issues leads toa reduction of recidivism. An important result is that no specific subgroup of courseparticipants could be found who benefit more or less from the participation in thecourse. Probably, those who need the course expose themselves by conspicuousness intraffic. The results support the assumption that traffic violations of young drivers aremostly a result of deficits in higher order behavioural requirements like reflection ofgoals for driving and goals for life and living. A methodological result of thisinvestigation is the fact that the chosen effect parameters show only little correlationwith recidivism; this suggests that no safe conclusions can be drawn from evaluationstudies that are based on just one effect parameter.

Other countries involved in the study did not report any age-group specific rehabiliatonmeasures.



May 2000

32

PUBLICITY, MASS MEDIA ANDEDUCATION

PUBLICITY AND MASS MEDIA

Publicity and information in support of police enforcement is intended to increase thesubjective risk of getting caught, provide information about the severeness of penalties(at what point is your driving licence requisitioned, when is your car confiscated), toprovide information about the importance of enforcement and information about theresults of enforcement on social standards.

The use of publicity and the media, as announcements of speed enforcement on certainroads, in newspapers, radio or TV, is considered to enhance the effect on speedreductions compared to speed enforcement alone (Zaal, 1994). The main benefit ofusing publicity is that it increases the perceived risk of being caught by raising theexpectation that enforcement activities will be encountered (Zaal, 1994). In order tohave any effect on speed, it seems necessary that the announcement of policeenforcement must be realistic. If drivers do not notice the publicised speed enforcement,they will soon learn that the announced increase in enforcement does not necessarilymean an increase in the actual risk of apprehension (Ross, 1982; Zaal, 1994). It can beconcluded that publicity should not be used as the only measure for a reduction indriving speeds, but rather as a supportive measure for other activities. Much of thesearguments apply to other offences the same way they apply to speeding offences.

An important mechanism of the use of publicity is its potential effect on social andcommunity acceptance. Elliot (1993) has stated that community acceptance ofenforcement plays an important role in the process of moderating behaviour and hassuggested that media publicity can be used to create a desirable and supportive climateof opinion in which enforcement measures can be introduced (Zaal, 1994).

Rooijers (1988) performed an extensive study into the effect of various informationcampaign strategies on speeding. This concerns three experiments at five differentlocations. The following strategies were evaluated:

! posters (both attitude and behavioural orientation)! folders (both attitude and behavioural orientation)! posters with electronic feedback! posters and letters combined! posters and folders combined! posters with letters and feedback



May 2000

33

! personal letters containing risk information! posters containing risk information.

An important conclusion from this study is that information campaigns in the field ofdriving speeds were hardly able to bring about a change in the attitude of road users.The speed reductions achieved with the various experiments only lasted a short time.The best results resulted from a direct and personal approach to the target group, with amessage containing both concrete behavioural recommendations and risk information.

Mass publicity is usually directed at the individual road user. However, road users arealso influenced by their immediate social environment, by other road users or bypersons and organisations with whom they have a relationship to a significant degree.The social environment of the road user can be mobilised in order to influence his or herbehaviour. Information about the behaviour of other road users can reinforce thestandards of the majority. A considerable part of the overall target group is susceptibleto such social control. Information alongside the road or via the mass media representsan instrument for transferring such information. For business or social motives used tojustify speeding, business and social relations will have to be involved in policy. Thebusiness community will need to be informed about the commercial advantages ofspeed reduction and, if necessary, pressure methods can be applied to serve as acatalyst. A company course approach is recommended, because more influence can beexerted in this way than via information campaigns.

APPLIED MEASURES

In Switzerland, there are activities for 16 to 20 year olds: the aim is to alter awarenessof risk factors and own behaviour patterns in road traffic. The main contents of theprograms are: risky behaviour (in general), speed and DUI. The target group is invitedto participate actively: There are different action-oriented elements; they intend todemonstrate on a practical level the effects of some risk factors or behaviour patternsand should help to start a discussion. Examples are:

! a climbing wall! a bar where visitors can mix a alcohol free drinks! a car simulator demonstrating dose-behaviour relationship for alcohol

These demonstrations are followed by discussions or more practical projects in theclasses. Three effects are expected: young people are more aware of risks while driving/ they speed and drink less while driving / they are more ready to accept (and to pay for)a solid driver training. The activities are planned by mainly two private institutions,both active on a national and regional level. They contact high schools and offer their‘safety unit’. If school managers accept the idea, the module will be applied. It takes



May 2000

34

about half a day for each class. The system has been in use for about 5 years now. Thetwo private institutions monitor their systems, no national evaluation study. The systemseems to be good, but it should be improved: the programs should be monitored in moredetail, improved if necessary and linked to police enforcement strategies

In Greece, excessive use of alcohol represents the main objective for a set of awarenessand publicity campaigns, conducted especially during high mobility seasons (Chistmas,Easter, holidays). These campaigns are conducted either by the the relevant ministries(Ministry of Public Order, Ministry of Transport) , or by non governmentalorganisations and associations such as Hellenic Institution of Transportation Engineers,an independent organisation called TROHOPEDIA (in greek meaning wheel-education)and many radio or television networks. The campaigns are carried out with differentways. Ministries and other govermental organisations publish and disrtibute at selectedareas (eg. toll stations) several leaflets for the drivers during their trips. Frequent spotson television inform about the danger of drinking and driving. The Hellenic Institutionof Transportation Engineers with the assistane and financial support of the Organisationof Greek Telecommunications released a series of telephone cards presenting messagesrelated to road safety issues. TROHOPEDIA organisation gives useful informationthrough their web-site and try to sensitize young people and universities on safetymatters.

Other countries too, report the use of publicity campaigns. However, since the contentof campaigns is not the primary focus of the Escape project, they will be discussed inthis paper any further. In the GADGET report a more elaborated view on publicitycampaigns is given.



May 2000

35

INTEGRATION OF ENFORCEMENTACTIVITIES AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS

CO-ORDINATION AND CO-OPERATION ISSUES

In the previous chapters several support systems have been described (legislation,administration, publicity, research, information etc.) that may increase the effectivenessand efficiency of police enforcement. The question is how these support systems can beintegrated with policing activities to achieve the best results. The mere availability ofsupport systems seems not enough. There should be some planning and co-ordinationbetween diverse activities and systems, which is to large extent dependent on thecoutries’ starting situation.

It is very difficult to compare traffic law enforcement systems between countries. InGADGET WP4 a lot of information has been gathered about national systems of trafficlaw enforcement. However, for several reasons the national scale is not the best level tomake comparisons. First of all, often there is no reliable monitoring of drivingbehaviours in different European countries. For instance, only Finland and theNetherlands have a tradition of an annual roadside drinking-and-driving survey. OtherEuropean countries rely on an analysis of accident statistics to acquire some insight intothe level and seriousness of the drinking-and-driving problem. Within each country,there are rather large variations in enforcement levels in different regions (urban versusrural), road types (e.g. rural versus motorway) and problem areas (e.g. speeding and seatbelt use).

The most difficult subject is to understand how the cultural-legal background of acertain country shapes enforcement rules, tactics and targets. The parameters involvedin the cultural-legal-administrative background are so numerous that it is easy to loosethe forest while looking at the trees. Also the specific parameters indicating “success”for a traffic law system vary widely. To name a few: behaviour change on the roads,change in road safety, public opinion, public willingness to pay fines, time betweenoffence and punishment, court protests against the system, the court time involved inhandling offenders or protesters, the costs of police manpower in detecting offenders,recidivism etc. Some of these parameters are not even in any way directly linked to roadsafety which is the main concern for this project. For instance, the willingness of roadusers to pay a fine tells us something about the smoothness of the legal-administrativemachine, but it doesn’t tell us whether the particular punishment was effective inchanging traffic behaviour.



May 2000

36

However, international comparisons are relevant and can provide us with usefulknowledge. In future European projects it should be considered to target comparisons atnational provinces, regions or districts for which there are good statistics available interms of traffic parameters, enforcement levels, and accident studies.

In terms of support that is needed for police enforcement table 5.1 shows in a simplifiedway the different starting situations that the traffic police may be confronted with. Theproblem behaviour (be it speeding, drinking-and-driving or seat belt use) may be on ahigh baseline level or still relatively low. The public acceptability of or active supportfor police interference in the field of problem behaviour may also be high or low. Andof course, the traffic police resources available in terms of manpower and equipmentmay differ.

Table 5.1 Favourable and less favourable situations for enforcement activities.

Traffic policing resources

Scarce Ample

Public acceptability/support Public acceptability/support

Low High Low High

Low 1 3 5 7Baseline rate ofProblem behaviour High 2 4 6 8

When traffic police resources are scarce and there is low public support for policeinterference in the problem area (situations 1 and 2) the police does not seem able to domuch more than “excess enforcement”. Mostly clear excesses will not be tolerated bythe police, but in general the police will not target this problem area. Low publicsupport and low resources to deal with a particular traffic problem necessitate positivepolitical action. In this case monitoring of the problem behaviour may be useful inshowing to both the public and policy makers that the problem behaviour may be morefrequent or more serious than is believed.

When there is high public support for police taking action in the problem area and thepolice has rather limited resources (situations 3 and 4), the police will be motivated toengage in what we may call “token enforcement”: given scarce resources the police stillcannot do much, but whenever they take enforcement action, they make sure that theaction will be noticed by the press and the public, ensuring demonstrative value. In theshort term, token enforcement may be quite impressive and may actually change roaduser behaviours. However, within a period of a few weeks, road users will come torealise that enforcement levels are actually quite low and probably will revert toprevious behaviour. When the baseline behaviour is clearly high and the public also isstrong supporter for a positive change, the police may engage in partnerships with



May 2000

37

citizen organisations or road interest groups to mobilise support for the enforcementactivities. Mostly, the other partners will be able to offer some help in organising specialpublicity event or in setting up a monitoring system that may help the police to targetenforcement activities to times and places.

Sometimes the traffic police may have rather ample resources available to undertakeaction in the field of the problem behaviour (situations 5 to 8). In those cases police mayengage in a special “enforcement project” over and above routine enforcement or mayengage in “area-wide planned enforcement” on a wider scale. If the police have ampleresources but public support for police interference is quite low, extra attention shouldbe paid to explain police action to the public. The communication surroundingenforcement activities should try to mobilise social support for the police action. Againpartnerships with public interest groups or citizen groups may enhance the status of thepolice actions for the public.

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES

In a country like Greece there seems to be growing awareness into the seriousness ofthe drinking-and-driving problem. Recently, it has been estimated that 40% of the fatalaccidents in Greece are caused by drunk drivers. Repeated police controls have shownthat drunk driving is also one of the most frequent offences. A number of measures hasbeen undertaken to tackle the problem, e.g. more severe penalties, publicity campaigns,donation of alcohol testers to the police. However, the activities of non-governmentalorganisations and other associations are single initiatives and the information andpublicity campaigns alone are not enough to directly change behaviour. Most of theefforts in Greece are single initiatives. Forces are not joined and there is not acomprehensive plan for tackling the problem. The duration and the density of any singleeffort does not correspond to the problem’s significance. The lack of a morecomprehensive strategic plan or policy to cope with traffic unsafety in Greece is at theroot of the problem. Also the lack of a well-established and comprehensive behaviourmonitoring plan makes assessment in due course very unlikely.

The general habit among Greek drivers and passengers is not to wear the seat belt. In1998, 75000 drivers in Greece were fined for not wearing a seat belt. Obviously, morerigorous enforcement of seat belt use would have a very strong road safety potential inSouthern European countries like Italy, Greece, Spain. Interestingly, the internationallyfamous McKinsey bureau studied cost-benefits of police enforcement in theNetherlands. The straightforward conclusion from the report was that enforcement ofseat belt use was very likely to be the most cost-effective enforcement tactic to be usedin the Netherlands, more cost-effective than enforcement of speeding or drinking-and-driving.



May 2000

38

The intention of the Austrian group courses is that the participants should gain insightinto dangerous behaviour and specific risks in traffic. They should reflect on their ownhabits and thus should improve their attitudes to traffic risk and develop clear strategieson how to adapt better to the rules and necessities of traffic. In Austria results wereobtained that indicated that the recidivism rate of offenders participating in such acourse can be lowered to 50% compared to a (quasi-)control group consisting ofoffenders that did not receive such a treatment. In an evaluation study of driverimprovement courses for novice drivers it was found that the psychological approach toconducting courses for young drivers is supported by empirical results. It was found thattraffic offences of young drivers are to a large extent determined by personality factors.It was found that the more courses focused on “reflection on personality” the lower therecidivism rate. Interestingly it was found in the same study that attitude measurementand judgment by psychologists differed in ability to predict future risk. In 1997 a specialbook titled “Alcohol in road traffic” was published in Austria. The book presentedresearch results about alcohol in traffic in order to shape public opinion and to influencedecision-makers.

In Switzerland roadside publicity is used to support the effects of speed enforcement.The roadside information informs the passing driver of the number of fines and licencesuspensions for offenders on a road stretch during the past weeks. As the Swiss roadsafety experts point out giving feedback about the proportion of drivers accepting thespeed limit may be more relevant from a psychological point of view. The social normto conform is also operative in traffic. If drivers form the impression from feedbackinformation that the norm is violating the speed limit, they may be tempted to followthis norm as soon as they have the chance. On the other hand, information about themajority of drivers conforming to the limit, may support acceptance of the limit.

In the Netherlands, the attempts to integrate various support systems with the activitiesof the police have concentrated on organising and supervising traffic enforcementoperations in organisational form of projects. The Dutch Aktiecentrum NalevingVerkeersregels (“Centre for Compliance with Traffic Rules”), a group of consultants,who help police plan enforcement projects on behalf of the Public Prosecutor’s Office,uses the following criteria to define a project:

! There is a project plan! There is a project team that comes together a minimum number of times to prepare,

to execute it and to evaluate the project! There is some type of evaluation of the project! The results in terms of number of fines/tickets are known.! There has been a before and after measurement of the behaviour which is targeted! There has been some type of accident evaluation! The results in term of input of police manpower are known.



May 2000

39

The policy towards more intensified police enforcement of traffic rules is regulated bythe development of 4-year plans for extra enforcement activities on a regional scale. Togive an idea of what is meant by regional scale we may present the following figures. Apolice region is a province or part of a province. In the Netherlands regions may havearound 250.000 up to 1 million inhabitants. They vary in square miles from around1000 km2 to about 5000 km2.

A regional enforcement plan is an integrated whole of enforcement activities by a policeforce and the various support systems that help this enforcement. The plan describes theextra enforcement activities in addition to the routine, regular enforcement activities.The plan is developed in mutual interaction between the experts from the PublicProsecutor’s Office, police and local and central government. The funding for the planis realised by the surplus returns coming from traffic sanctions and fines.

The regional plans have the following features:

! The plan describes a balanced ration between enforcement by camera technology (inthe Netherlands often manned, stationary police-car equipped with a camera-unit)and actually stopping offenders in traffic (drinking-and-driving, seat belt use; use ofhelmets by moped riders; but also speeding and red-light running)

! The enforcement activities proposed in the plan are based on an analysis of the roadsafety problems within the region;

! The aims of the plan are quantified in terms of enforcement level indicators (.e.g.expected input of person hours, number of alcohol checks) and number of sanctionsand fines;

! The monitoring of traffic violations and police enforcement activities, the regularevaluation of monitoring results are part and parcel of the plan and are guaranteedbefore the start of the project.

! The plan specifies the tasks and responsibilities of all partners involved. Forinstance, the plan specifies the number of hours and the number of sanctions thepolice has to realise (additional to routine levels of enforcement). Furthermore, theplan describes the budget, allocation of manpower and resources, co-ordination andco-operation between partners, and the administrative and financial, accountability.

The regional plans are made for periods of four years, but can be re-adjusted after every,yearly evaluation. In the Netherlands, the budget supervisor of the plan is the head ofthe Enforcement Bureau, who works for the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

It is expected that the regulation of extra enforcement activities by regional plan willyield several benefits:



May 2000

40

! Better monitoring of accident causes and compliance levels within a region;! Better reasoned choices about the allocation of scarce enforcement resources;! Better regulation of enforcement activities within the region;! A more transparent relationship between the use of (police) resources and

(measurable) results;! A larger flexibility in the choice of usable means;! Mutual supportive interaction between different enforcement activities;! Better co-ordination between various road safety initiatives within the region.



May 2000

41

REFERENCES

Armour, M. (1984). A review of the Literature on Police Traffic Law Enforcement.Australian Road Research, 14, pp. 17-25.

Bartl, G., Esberger, R. & Brandstätter (1997). Unfallbilanz nach fünf JahrenFührerschein auf Probe. Zeitschrift für Verkehrssicherheit, 42, 317-321.

Beyleveld, D. (1980). A bibliography on general deterrence. Saxon House, WestmeadFarnborough.

Brouwer, F. and Heidstra, J. (1998). Educatieve Maatregel Snelheid. Evaluatierapport.Amsterdam: Dienst Verkeerspolitie Amsterdam

Cameron, M.H., Cavallo, A., & Gilbert, A.(1992). Crash-based evaluation of the speedcamera program in Victoria 1990-1991. Phase 1: general effects. Phase 2: effects ofprogram mechanisms. Clayton, Vic., Monash University, Accident Research CentreARC, 1992, Xii +63 + 42 p., ARC report No 42.

Casey, S.M., & Lund, A.K. (1993). The effects of mobile roadside speedometers ontraffic speeds. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 25, no. 5, pp. 627-634.

Center for Compliance with Traffic Rules (1998). Report and vision 1992-2000 (InDutch). Driebergen, Netherlands.

Christ, R. (1999). Driver improvement courses for novice drivers in Austria - Whatdetermines the effect? Paper KfV, 16-09-99.

Elliot, B. (1993). Road Safety Mass Media Campaigns. A Meta Analysis. Report CR118. Canberra, Federal Office of Road Safety.

ETSC (1999). Police Enforcement Strategies to reduce traffic casualties in Europe.Brussels, European Transport Council.

Gibbs, J.P. (1975). Crime, punishment and deterrence. New York: Elsevier

Goldenbeld, Ch. Mathijssen, M.P.M. & Bunk, K. (1999). Evaluatie van het project“Fryske Diken” Evaluation of effects of intensified traffic enforcement in the provinceof Friesland in the period February 1998-31 December 1998. Report in Dutch.Leidschendam: SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research.



May 2000

42

Goldenbeld, Ch. (1995). Police enforcement: theory and practice. In: PTRC Eductionand Research Services, Traffic Management and Road Safety. Proceedings of SeminarG. PTRC Education and Services LTD, London.

Goldenbeld, C., Jayet, M.C., Fuller, R. and T. Mäkinen (1999). Enforcement of trafficlaws. Review of the literature on enforcement of traffic rules in the framework ofGADGET Worl Package 5. SWOV, INRETS, TCD, VTI.

Hagenzieker (1999). Rewards to Stimulate Safety Belt Use: An Overview of ResearchFindings. In: Hengst, S., Smit, K. en J.A. Stoop (Eds.), Second World Congress onSafety of Transportation. University Press, Delft, Netherlands.

Hakkert, A.S. (1994). Traffic law enforcement and road user behaviour. Leidschendam:SWOV-report A 94-21.

Hatakka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A.. (1997). Do the psychologists have to offersomething in driver training, driver improvement and selection? In: Spoerer, E. (Ed.)Assessing the driver. Faktor Mensch im Verkehr, 41, p. 49-58, Braunschweig, 1997.

Hansjosten, E. & Schade, F.-D. (1994). Wissenschaftliche Begleitforschung zurFahrerlaubnis auf Probe. Schlußbericht zum Forschungsprojekt 8311/42 derBundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, unpublished.

Hansjosten, E. & Schade, F.-D. (1997). Legalbewährung von Fahranfängern. Berichteder Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Heft M 71.

Holland, C.A. & Conner, M.T. (1996). Exceeding the speed limit: an evaluation of theeffectiveness of a police intervention. Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol. 28, no. 5,pp. 587-597.

Houten, R. van & Nau, P.A. (1983). Feedback interventions and driving speed:parametric and comparative analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 16, 253-281.

Jacobshagen, W. (1997). Nachschulungskurse für alkoholauffällige Fahranfänger(NAFA) – Kurspraxis, Wirksamkeit und Akzeptanz. Köln: Verlag TÜV Rheinland.

Jacobshagen, W. (1998). Nachschulungskurs für alkoholauffällige Fahranfänger nachdem Modell NAFA in Deutschland: Klientel, Kursdurchführung, Wirksamkeit undAkzeptanz. In: Driver Improvement 6. Internationaler Workshop. Berichte derBundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Heft M 93.



May 2000

43

Machemer, E, Runde, B, Wolf, U, Büttner, D, & Tücke, M (1995): DelegierteBelohnung und intensivierte Verkehrsüberwachung im Vergleich. Bergisch Gladbach:Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Berichte der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, HeftM48)

Mayntz, G. (1998). Verhaltensbeeinflussung bei Fahranfängern zur Reduktion desUnfallrisikos – Vorschläge zur Einführung einer zweiphasigen Fahrausbildung. In:Driver Improvement 6. Internationaler Workshop. Berichte der Bundesanstalt fürStraßenwesen, Heft M 93.

Meewes, V. & Weissbrodt, G. (1992). Führerschein auf Probe – Auswirkungen auf dieVerkehrssicherheit. Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Unfall- undSicherheitsforschung Straßenverkehr, Heft 87.

Ministry of Transport and Waterworks (1995). The Manual Traffic Enforcement (InDutch language). Police Traffic Institute, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.

Muskaug, R. & Christensen, P.(1995). The use of collective feedback to reduce speed.Institute for Transport Economics, 1995 (TØI Working report 995/1995).

Oei, H.L. (1988). Plaatselijke snelheidsbeïnvloeding. Grote mogelijkheden voor deverkeersveiligheid? Leidschendam: SWOV-report 88-19.

Oei, H.L. (1994), Beheersing van de rijsnelheid in de provincie Friesland; Eenondersteuning voor een nota rijsnelhedenbeleid. Netherlands, Leidschendam: SWOV-report 94-17.

Oei, H.L (1998). The effect of enforcement on behaviour. Deliverable 3. ProjectMASTER. Report D-98-8. SWOV, Leidschendam, The Netherlands.

Onneweer, A.W. (1997). Effecten van bestuurelijke boetes: een vergelijking vanstrafrechtelijke en bestuurlijke handhaving van verkeersvoorschriften. ProefschriftRijksuniversiteit Groningen, RUG, Groningen. Kluwer, Deventer.

Rooijers, A.J.(1988). De invloed van verschillende voorlichtingstechnieken op hetsnelheidsgedrag van automobilisten. Netherlands, Haren: Traffic Research CentreReport VK 88-09. PACTS (1999). Road traffic law and enforcement: a driving force forcasualty reduction. London: Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety.

Ross, H.L. (1982). Deterring the drinking driver: Legal policy and social control.Lexington Book, Lexington, MA.



May 2000

44

Schulze, H., Assailly, J.-P., Bartl, G., Simpson, H. Twisk, D.A.M. and G. Yannis(1999). PROMISING. Promotion of Measures for Vulnerable Road Users. YoungDrivers. Final Report of Work Package 4. Deliverable P.4-Hune 1999.

Spoerer, E. & Kratz, M. (1991). Vier Jahre Erfahrung mit der Nachschulung vonalkoholauffälligen Fahranfängern (Inhaber einer Fahrerlaubnis auf Probe). Blutalkohol,28, 333-342.

Spoerer, E. & Ruby, M.M. & Siegrist, S. (Hrsg.) (1994). Nachschulung undRehabilitation verkehrsauffälliger Kraftfahrer – Dokumentation von Kursen undLiteratur zum Driver Improvement, 2., aktualisierte Aufl. Braunschweig: Rot-Gelb-Grün, Faktor Mensch im Verkehr, Heft 35.

Stephan, E. (1984). Die Rückfallwahrscheinlichkeit bei alkoholauffälligen Kraftfahrernin der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Die Bewährung in den ersten 5 Jahren nachWiedererteilung der Fahrerlaubnis. Zeitschrift für Verkehrssicherheit, 30, 28-33.

SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research (1993) Towards a sustainable traffic systemin the Netherlands, SWOV-brochure, Leidschendam.

Tittle, C.R. (1980). Sanctions and social deviance: the question of deterrence. Praegr,New York.

Tücke, M, & Wolf, U. (1995): Formelle Kontrolle durch die Polizei und sozialeBeeinflussung durch Delegierte Belohnung im Straßenverkehr. In: BerufsverbandDeutscher Psychologen (Hrg.): 18. Kongreß für Angewandte Psychologie,Abstractband. Bonn: Deutscher Psychologen Verlag, 318-319

Tücke, M. & Wolf, U. (1996). Reduzierung von Geschwindigkeiten im ländlichenRaum durch “delegierte Belohnung” und/oder intensivierte polizeiliche Überwachung.In: BFU/BPA/UPI (1996). Conference Folder. 3 May 1996. V. European Workshop onRecent Developments in Road Safety Research.

Vissers, J.A.M.M., Hoff, J.P. van ‘t (1998). Effecten van de EMA: eenevaluatieonderzoek naar de leereffecten van de Educatieve Maatregel Alcohol enVerkeer. Veenendaal Traffic Test. Report TT 98-26.

Wagner, W. & Vierboom, C. (1988). Untersuchung zur Optimierung desNachschulungskurses für Fahranfänger - Begleituntersuchung. Untersuchungsberichtfür den Deutschen Verkehrssicherheitsrat.

Wildervanck, C. (1993). Geïntegreerde aanpak van snelheid op 80 km-wegen entraversen. Netherlands, Groningen: ROG, Groningen.



May 2000

45

Wolf, U, Tücke, M, & Machemer, E (1995): Geschwindigkeitsbeeinflussung imländlichen Raum durch intensivierte polizeiliche Überwachung und delegierteBelohnung. Referat an der Polizeiführungsakademie Münster-Hiltrup.

Zaal, D. (1994). Traffic Law Enforcement: A review of the literature. MonashUniversity Crash Research Centre. Report No 53. Canberra.



May 2000

46

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Introduction and instruction

The definition of a support systemThe following definition of a support system is used: “An enforcement support system isa single measure or a set of measures that is used by authorities or bodies in co-operation with authorities to support enforcement including legal measures andadjudication.” Activities of support systems may be provided as information,regulations, feedback - immediate or delayed or as punitive measures. A distinctioncan be made between general support systems and selective support systems.General support systems are on a national scale and include for example: measures inthe field of education, licensing, demerit point systems, general safety campaigns.Selective support systems are selective in space, time or category of road user.Selective systems can be divided in incentive programs and roadside actions. In theworking paper we can apply this distinction.

We should keep in mind that some systems may be supportive of the enforcement oftraffic laws while they have not been designed for that purpose. For instance, thedecision to set up an administrative criminal system for processing traffic penalties(introduced in the Netherlands in the early nineties) was primarily meant to absolve thecourts from overload of work. However, this change in the legislative system hadenormous consequences for the processing capacity of the traffic law enforcement inthe Netherlands. Likewise, changes in driver licensing and insurance policies may beimplemented for reasons not directly related to enforcement, yet have consequencesfor enforcement. In our report we should pay some attention to these developments.

Support systems:1) directly related to operations in the street2) side-conditions

The questionnaire focuses on support systems for different behavioural areas indifferent countries. These systems all have rather different approaches to support legalmeasures and enforcement. The support systems focused on are:

Support systems directly related to efficiency of operations in the streets:• use of research information for planning of enforcement (e.g. monitoring/accident

analysis programs)• use of research information for evaluation of enforcement and decision-making• use of research information for publicity purposes• development of knowledge and expertise within police organisation• automated traffic and enforcement knowledge systems• specific infrastructural facilities enabling better enforcement (e.g. road signs)• various technology solutions: alcohol locks, speed limiters of trucks, seat belt use

warning device, etc.



May 2000

47

Examples of side-conditions affecting efficiency of enforcement operations:• de-merit point systems• training and education programmes (rehabilitation, as far as the time lag with

conviction is small)• feedback systems (other than demerit point systems)• support systems dealing with driver licensing (maintaining or renewing)• support systems dealing with acquiring driver's licence• condition (age etc.) specific control systems for driving• insurance policies• curfew measures for young drivers

It should be noted, however, that on the one-hand this list is not exclusive and that onthe other hand only those systems should be included that are actually supportive topolice enforcement and not those that are autonomous, self-reliant systemsthemselves.

Areas coveredESCAPE includes essentially the same approach in terms of areas to be covered asGADGET wp5 + additional topics. The work in the different workpackages of GADGET(Enforcement, Safety Campaigns and Education) is extremely important for the presentESCAPE Workpackage since ESCAPE WP3 tries to explore fields of knowledge thathave not already been extensively covered. Therefore it is important to gatherknowledge gained in WP3 (Education), 4 (Campaigns) and 5 (Enforcement) ofGADGET. The ESCAPE WP3 group should have quick access to the separate andcomplete Work Package end reports of WP3, 4 and 5 from GADGET. The sameargument can be made for the results of PROMISING which contain the latestknowledge in the field of measures for young drivers and are relevant for our focus onenforcement of young drivers. The comparability of workpackages is a desiredobjective that will be satisfactorily maintained by sticking to the four key areas:• Alcohol,• Seat belts,• Speed,• Young drivers.The questionnaire should be especially used for those measures that are “widelyused”, “relevant”, “promising”, “newly introduced”, “about which good evidence isavailable”. For instance, in the case of Germany, it seems that the introduction of thepoint system and the enforcement of speeding by non-police (cities and city-areas) aretwo of the “widely used”, “relevant”, “promising” and “newly introduced” measures tocomplement or support conventional police enforcement. It would make sense then tocover these two measures for Germany. In other European countries other importantdevelopments have occurred. The emphasis should be on major changes that –presumably - have made a real impact. There will be the WP1 in ESCAPE thatattempts to fuse the information from all the other WP's.

As stated before, all relevant support systems applied in countries participating inEscape WP3 should be included Nevertheless, some unique, useful and relevant



May 2000

48

support-systems could be found in countries not involved in WP3 or even in theESCAPE project at all. We therefore suggest to make a distinction between two levelsof investigation: 1) thorough investigation by all workpackage members of supportsystems in their own country and 2) a more superficial investigation of at least oneother country (ESCAPE or not) by every member. It has been decided that thefollowing countries will be covered:

VTT would cover two Scandinavian countriesBAST would cover Germany and one other country (or tow Federal States in Germany)KFV would cover Austria and SwitzerlandINRETS would cover France and SpainSWOV would cover Netherlands and EnglandUniversity of Thessaloniki would cover Greece and Italy

Investigation techniqueThe most appropriate method to assess all relevant support systems seemed to be asurvey technique. A questionnaire has been developed for this purpose. Thequestionnaire is based on the idea of a Support System x Problem.

The questionnaire should be answered on the basis of different sources since it isunlikely that one sole source will give answers to all questions. Of course, the mainsources are experts, (evaluative) reports and national statistics. Most of the answers tothe questions can be short, although we certainly expect that the answers are moreelaborate than a simple “yes” or “no”.

General RemarkAt all times, while completing the questionnaire, please keep in mind the originalobjectives of WP3 (Complementary systems for effective police enforcement) being: (1)Describe and compare EU member states regarding the structure and function of legaland administrative support systems relevant to enforcement. (2) Analyse and comparesystems in terms of complexity, efficiency, flexibility, contributing or hindering efficientenforcement, and other criteria. (3) Describe alternatives to conventional policeenforcement and how they might apply to reducing non-compliance on a EU-widescale. (4) Recommend legal, administrative and non-police based compliance conceptsfor possible inclusion in EU demonstration projects.



May 2000

49

Possible support activities in the area of alcohol (non–exclusive) are:

• information / research• rehabilitation, training and education programmes• criminal (administrative) systems• support systems dealing with driver licensing (maintaining or renewing)• various technology solutions: alcohol locks

Given the examples above, could you give a short description of activities you know ofthat are used for supporting enforcement and legal measures in the area of alcohol inyour country. If you know more similar systems, please mention the one most widelyused, relevant, promising, newly introduced or the one about which most researchevidence is available (please include documentation or references if where available)

For the activities you described, please try to answer the following questions. Pleasetry to include documentation or references when available.

Expected results:• What has been the main reason to adopt the support system (experiences in other

countries, research outcomes, etc.)• What are the expected effects and what are these expectations based on

(references?)

Implementation:• How is the system implemented• What bodies are involved in the system and in what way• What is its legal/formal status• For how long has the system been in use

Description of the process:• Please describe in short the different phases in the process of the support system

(when, where, what and how)• How are drivers made aware of the system (what kind of and how is feedback

given)• Is there any information about the estimated costs of the system en how these

costs are divided (administration, working hours, etc.)

Evaluation:• Is the system monitored/evaluated?• Please shortly describe how the monitoring/evaluation is carried out• Is there any research evidence on the effect of the system (references)

Public acceptance:• Has the acceptance of the system been assessed and is the system accepted by

the public



May 2000

50

Future developments:• Do you know of any plans to change or improve the support system in question in

the (near) future• How will this change or improvement be carried out.

General opinion:• What is your general opinion about the system• Is the system relevant for Europe• What recommendations do you have about the system



May 2000

51

Possible activities in the area of seat-belt use (non–exclusive) are:

information / researcheducation programsfeedback systemscriminal (administrative) systemsvarious technology solutions

Given the examples above, could you give a short description of activities you know ofthat are used for supporting enforcement and legal measures in the area of seat beltuse in your country. If you know more similar systems, please mention the one mostwidely used, relevant, promising, newly introduced or the one about which mostresearch evidence is available (please include documentation or references if whereavailable)



(references)







Public acceptance:• Has the acceptance of the system been assessed and is it accepted by the public



May 2000

52






May 2000

53

Possible activities in the area of speeding (non–exclusive) are:

information / researchrehabilitation, training and education programsfeedback systemscriminal (administrative) systemssupport systems dealing with driver licensing (maintaining or renewing)various technology solutions: limiterscondition (age etc.) specific control systems for driving.

Given the examples above, could you give a short description of activities you know ofthat are used for supporting enforcement and legal measures in the area of speeding inyour country. If you know more similar systems, please mention the one most widelyused, relevant, promising, newly introduced or the one about which most researchevidence is available (please include documentation or references if where available)



(references)










May 2000

54






May 2000

55

Possible activities in the area of young drivers (non–exclusive) are:

information / researchrehabilitation, training and education programsfeedback systemscriminal (administrative) systemssupport systems dealing with driver licensing (maintaining or renewing)condition (age etc.) specific control systems for driving.

Given the examples above, could you give a short description of activities you know ofthat are used for supporting enforcement and legal measures in the area of youngdrivers in your country. If you know more similar systems, please mention the onemost widely used, relevant, promising, newly introduced or the one about which mostresearch evidence is available (please include documentation or references if whereavailable)



(references)










May 2000

56



General opinion:• What is your general opinion about the system• Is the system relevant for Europe• What recommendations do you have

This is the end of the questionnaire. In advance, we thank you for your co-operation. Please send anelectronic version as well as a paper version of the completed questionnaire to SWOV preferably before:

September 1st 1999

And not later than:

October 1st 1999

The mailing address is:SWOV

Postbus 10902260 BB LeidschendamThe Netherlands

The e-mail addresses the questionnaire should be send to are (please send a copy toboth addresses):[email protected]@swov.nl



May 2000

57

Appendix B:

Overview of relevant previous research results

Table B1. Presence of point system and licence suspension in European countries(Source: SARTRE 2)

Possibility of licence suspension(+50 = violation of limit with more than 50 km/hrs)

Country Point system-present?

Violations onmotorways,highways ormain roads

Violations onsecondary roads

Violations onroads with trafficcalming

Violations inbuilt-up areas

Austria No +50 at least 2weeks suspension

+50 at least 2weeks suspension



Belgium No +50 2 weekssuspension

+ 50 2 weekssuspension

+50 2 weekssuspension

+50 2 weekssuspension

Finland No +40 flexible +40 no info +40 +40

France Since July =92 +30/+20 suspen-sion

+20 suspension +20 suspension +20 suspension

Germany Before>91 +40 no info +40 suspensionoutside urban

+30 +30

Greece Before>91 +40 suspension +40 suspension +40 suspension +40 suspension

Ireland No no info no info no info no info

Italy Before>91 +40 suspension +40 suspension +40 suspension +40 suspension

Netherlands No +50/70 suspens-ion possible

+50 suspensionpossible



Portugal No +30/50suspensionpossible

+30/50suspensionpossible



Spain No +50/77suspen-sion

+49/69suspension +28/39suspension +29/40suspension

Sweden No +31 usually sus-pension

+31 usually sus-pension

+21 usuallysuspension

+31usually sus-pension

UK Before>91 no info no info no info no info

Czech Rep No +30 no info +30 +30 +30

Hungary No +40/+33/26 sus-pension

+26 suspension +10 suspension +17 suspension

Poland SinceJune=93 no withdrawal no suspension no suspension no suspension

Slovakia No +30 no info +30 +30 +30

Slovenia No +60/+50 no info +40/45 +15/20 +30/35

Switzerland No +30 no info +30 +30 +30



May 2000

58

Table B2. Best practice in planning enforcement projects: the experience from theNetherlands (Source: Manual on enforcement, Ministry of Transport andWaterworks, 1995)

Time frame Partners Activity

6 monthsbefore

Police, municipality,road authority,publicity organisation

Initiative; first deliberations resulting in:- establishment of project group- assignment of police co-ordinator & publicity co-ordinator- making a plan- calculating a budget- arrange financing- arrange co-workers

4 monthsbefore

Project group - Planning police operations, inclusive instruction meetings- Acquisition electronic equipment- Generating ideas for public start publicity event

3 monthsbefore

Project group - Purchase of publicity materials- Deciding about program start event (publicity, Master of

Ceremonies, music, invitations to the press, invitedspeakers)

2-1 monthbefore

Project group - Before measure (so-called “0-measure”) can also be doneearlier; it is important that before measure is done beforeany publicity reaches the public

10 daysbefore

Project groupEspecially publicityco-ordinator

- Official press bulleting about campaign and start evening

Day 1Campaign

Project group andinvited speakers

- Start event- Press conference- First speed check

Campaignperiod

Project group - Keep track of weekly speed checks- Identify and solve practical/organisation bottlenecks- Send weekly press bulletin with information about results of

controls

Immediatelyafter

Project group - First after measure (so-called “1-measure”) of speeding onsame locations and days

Shortly after Project group - As soon as results are known press conference with surveyof total results of controls in terms of number of offendersand changes in speeding behaviour

- Clear message that speed checks will continue

3 monthsafter

Project group - Second after measure (so called “2-measure”) to establishcontinuation of achieved behavioural effects

- As soon as results are known new press bulletin withsummary of results

- Clear message to the public that speed checks continue

1 year after Project group - Third after measure- Press bulletin with the latest results- Clear message that speed checks will continue (or in the

case of new campaign may be soon intensified)



May 2000

59

Table B3. Summary main findings PROMISING 1999 literature study intocountermeasures aimed at young drivers (Source: Schulze et al., 1999)

Type of Countermeasure Risk factor involved Problem group Evaluationresult

Technical restrictive countermeasures

Graduated licensing with restrictions;vehicle with limited HP

Cognitive overload Inexperience Non

Technical non-restrictive countermeasures

Use of driving simulator in drivereducation

Inexperience Inexperience +

Non-technical restrictive measures

1 Intermediate licensing Risk utility Inexperience+Risk seeking

+

2 Additional driving courses Incorrect driving routinesRisk seeking

Inexperience+Risk seeking

+-

3 Intermediate licensing with speed limit Cognitive overload Inexperience +-

4 Intermediate licensing with nightcurfew

Several factors Inexperience +

5 Intermediate licensing with zero-BAC Several factors Inexperience+Risk seeking

+-

6 Intermediate licensing w/o passengers Influence of passengers Inexperience Non

7 Intermediate licensing combinations Several factors Inexperience+Risk seeking

+

8 Two-phased driver education Limited hazard perception skillsIncorrect driving routines

+-

9 Accompanied driving: private drivingtuition

Several factors Inexperience -

10 Accompanied driving: apprenticeship Several factors Inexperience +-

11 Intermediate licensing with 2nddriving test and restrictions duringprobation

Several factors Inexperience Non

12 Stricter and more frequent policecontrols

Risk utility Inexperience Non

13 Prohibition of aggressive caradvertisements

Risk seeking Inexperience ?

Non-technical non-restrictive measures

1 Higher licensing age All juvenile specific risk factors Inexperience +-

2 Education: intensification Incorrect driving routines Inexperience -

3. Education: hazard perception training Limited hazard perception skills Inexperience +-

4. Education: limitation training Overestimation of own abilities Inexperience +

3 Education: training of driving skills Cognitive overload Inexperience -

4 Education: commentary driving Limited hazard perception skillsIncorrect driving routines

Inexperience Non

5 Education: protection of environment Risk utility Risk seeking Non

6 More intensive pedagogical educationof driving instructors

Target not specified ? Non



May 2000

60

Type of Countermeasure Risk factor involved Problem group Evaluationresult

7 EU-wide guidelines for drivereducation/test

Target not specified ? Non

8 Quality standards for driving schools Target not specified ? Non

9 EU-standardised psychological tests,obligatory second training for accidentdrivers

Incorrect driving routinesRisk seeking

Inexperience+Risk seeking

Non

10. Campaigns Several factors Non

goldenbeld escape wp4

Documents