Street racing and stunt driving in Ontario, Canada: Results of a web-based survey of car and racing enthusiasts

Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

Street racing and stunt driving in Ontario, Canada: Results of a web-based survey of car and racing enthusiasts Evelyn Vingilis a,⇑, Jane Seeley a, David Wiesenthal b, Robert Mann c, Larissa Vingilis-Jaremko d, Ward Vanlaar e, Nerida Leal f a

Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Canada c Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada d Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada e Traffic Injury Research Foundation, Ottawa, Canada f Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety-Queensland, Queensland, Australia b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 28 August 2012 Received in revised form 23 May 2013 Accepted 9 August 2013

Keywords: Web-based survey Stunt driving Street racing Risky driving Canada

a b s t r a c t In the Canadian context, stunt driving refers to street racing and associated risky driving activities. Although no national official statistics are available, other data have found that stunt driving is a common activity among young males. Research from Australia, New Zealand and other jurisdictions has shown that those engaged in stunt driving are at higher crash and violation risk. The purpose of this study was to examine the correlates of selfreported stunt driving and the effects of thrill seeking, competitive driving and attitudes towards risky driving on self-reported stunt driving among a sample of car and racing enthusiasts through a web-based survey of car and racing clubs. The Internet questionnaire included: (1) personality variables (Driver Thrilling Seeking Scale, Competitive Attitude Toward Driving Scale); (2) beliefs about seriousness and perceived crash likelihood of various drivers and driving behaviours; (3) attitudes regarding Ontario, Canada’s new stunt driving legislation and street racing/stunt driving; (4) risky driving behaviours, as measured by the Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire subscale, Self-Report Driver Aggression Questionnaire, Risk-Taking Driving Scale, collisions in past five years, traffic offences in last year and stunt driving, as defined by Ontario’s Street Racers, Stunt and Aggressive Drivers Legislation. A minority of car and racing enthusiasts reported stunt driving. Clear differences emerged between the self-reported stunt drivers and non-stunt drivers. Stunt drivers were more likely to be young, less concerned about excessive speeding and street racing, to hold more negative attitudes towards Ontario’s stunt driving legislation and more positive attitudes towards street racing and stunt driving, to score higher on the driver thrill seeking, competitive attitude toward driving and risky driving scales and more likely to report traffic offences in the past year. The sequential logistic regression showed that personality characteristics and attitudes provided unique contributions to the model in predicting stunt driving. Thus, although a minority of the sampled car and racing enthusiasts engage in stunt driving, further interventions need to be considered to reduce their risky driving beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Western Centre for Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C1, Canada. Tel.: +1 (519) 858-5063x2; fax: +1 (519) 661 3878. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Vingilis). 1369-8478/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.08.003

E. Vingilis et al. / Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42

31

1. Introduction Street racing and associated stunt driving activities, such as burnouts and drifting, are high risk driving activities and of considerable concern to the general public (Palk, Freeman, Gee Kee, Steinhardt, & Davey, 2011; Vanlaar, Simpson, Mayhew, & Robertson, 2008). These driving activities have also fostered media and government attention because of associated trafficrelated deaths (Palk et al., 2011). Peak and Glensor (2004), in their review of street racing for the US Department of Justice, state that ‘‘the problem has reached serious levels’’ within North America, Europe and Australasia. Official statistics are limited on street racing, stunt driving and related casualties because most police agencies lack a dedicated coding category for street racing on police collision reporting forms, although investigating officers can include the contributing factor of street racing in the incident description on the reporting form (Folkman, 2005; Vingilis & Smart, 2009). Moreover, witnesses are needed to identify whether street racing or stunt driving activities were involved prior to a collision, but drivers, passengers and spectators are reluctant witnesses (Folkman, 2005). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that some street racing-related collisions are coded as speeding-related because of the challenges for police to obtain information on street racing (Vingilis & Smart, 2009). Transport Canada identifies speeding as the second most common contributor to motor vehicle fatalities with 27% of fatalities and 19% of serious injuries involving speeding (Transport Canada, 2011). There are few studies on street racing or stunt driving-related collisions and fatalities. A study conducted in Utah found that 0.2% of all crashed drivers received at least one street racing citation between 1992–2002, although drivers with a street racing citation had seven times the number of crashes per 1000 days (0.70) than drivers with no citations (0.10) (Li et al., 2008). Another study, using the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) form that reports fatal crashes in the US, found that .021% (315) of all fatal collisions (149,568 fatal collisions in total) and 399 fatalities were attributed to street racing during 1998–2001 (Knight, Cook, & Olson, 2004). Project Eliminate Racing Activity on Streets Everywhere (E.R.A.S.E), a database by police forces in southern Ontario, Canada, reports that between 1999 and 2007, 38 individuals died (average of five per year) as a result of street racing activities in the Greater Toronto Area (Girard, 2007), representing on average 6.4% of the region’s motor vehicle fatalities (Ministry of Transport of Ontario, 2006). In Queensland, Australia, between 1999 and 2004 street racing and stunt driving activities, colloquially labelled ‘‘hooning’’, were identified through examination of the incident descriptions of young driver collisions in Queensland Transport’s WebCrash database; street racing and stunt driving contributed to a total of 169 motor vehicle collisions (Armstrong & Steinhardt, 2005), representing a small percentage of the total crashes (Fuller, 2007). The same database identified one street racing/stunt driving-related fatality and 11 hospitalized injuries for 2001–2004 (Folkman, 2005). Leal and Watson (2011) found that of 848 street racing and stunt driving offences that occurred in Queensland, Australia, 3.7% resulted in a collision, and street racing and stunt driving offenders had significantly more traffic offences, licence suspensions, revocations and collisions than a matched comparison group. Surveys have provided additional information on street racing. In a representative sample of adults surveyed by telephone in Ontario, Canada, only one percent reported street racing within the previous year, although street racing was more commonly reported by male respondents, those under 35 years of age, and those who reported more drinking driving, psychological and substance use problems (Smart et al., 2011; Smart et al., 2012). In a representative sample of high school students in Ontario, Canada, 20.4% of grade 11 and 12 students with advanced-level or full licences reported street racing at least once in the past year (Vingilis et al., 2011). In a national US Gallup poll conducted to examine speeding and unsafe driving attitudes and behaviour, 3% of 4010 drivers 16 years of age and older, reported racing in the past month (Royal, 2003). Arnett, Offer, and Fine (1997), examining risky driving practices in a sample of 139 students 17–18 years of age, found that 69% of males and 36% of females reported racing another car in the past year, with 6% of males and 3% of females reporting engaging in this activity more than 10 times in the past year. Similarly, Bina, Graziano, and Bonino (2006) found that 38% of males and 13% of females reported ‘‘racing a car on the streets’’ (p. 475) at least once in the last two months in a sample of 645 Italian adolescents, aged 14–17. Thus, street racing is a commonly reported activity among young drivers. Despite the lack of official, national statistics available on stunt driving in Canada, regional collision and casualty statistics and other data on street racing and stunt driving were of sufficient concern that various jurisdictions across Canada introduced legislation to tackle these driving behaviours. 1.1. Street racing legislation In September 2007, the province of Ontario introduced Bill 203 to target street racing and stunt driving. In Ontario, stunt driving was defined by the following activities: causing some or all tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning (drifting); spinning tires or causing a vehicle to circle (burnouts, doughnuts); lifting some or all tires from the surface of the highway (wheelies); driving while the driver is not sitting in the driver’s seat (ghost riding); preventing another vehicle from passing; driving two or more motor vehicles side by side where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane for oncoming traffic (playing chicken); driving as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or object without a reason and driving 50 km per hour over the speed limit (Highway Traffic Act, 2009). The penalties include seven-day vehicle impoundment and driver’s licence suspension, fine from $2000 to $10,000, driver’s licence suspension for up to two years

32

E. Vingilis et al. / Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42

upon conviction, and loss of six demerit points which could lead to an interview with the Ministry of Transport and possible further licence suspension (Highway Traffic Act, 2009). Other jurisdictions have similar offences. For example, all Australian states and territories have ‘‘anti-hooning’’ legislation as does New Zealand (Leal, Watson, & Armstrong, 2010). 1.2. Stunt driving and individual differences No research has been conducted in Ontario on stunt drivers and on correlates of stunt driving. Only a few studies from Australia and New Zealand have examined similar types of stunt driving behaviours (e.g. Armstrong & Steinhardt, 2005; Falconer & Kingham, 2007; Leal & Watson, 2011; Palk et al., 2011). Risky driving behaviour, in general, has been associated with sociodemographic, personality and attitudinal variables. The available evidence on risky drivers indicates that they are predominantly young and male (Gee Kee, Palk, & Steinhardt, 2007; Krahé & Fenske, 2002; Leal, 2010; Leal, Watson, & King, 2007; Palk et al., 2011; Patil, Shope, Raghunathan, & Bingham, 2006; Thake, Armstrong, & Leal, 2011; Vingilis et al., 2011). Among personality characteristics, thrill, sensation or risk seeking propensity has consistently been associated with risky driving (e.g., Arnett, 1996; Arnett et al., 1997; Burns & Wilde, 1995; Clément & Jonah, 1984; Dahlen, Martin, Ragan, & Kuhlman, 2005; Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Fernandes, Soames Job, & Hatfield, 2007; Jonah, 1997). Thrill seeking may lead to stunt driving because stunt driving activities can provide the type of novel and intense stimulation that thrill seekers find pleasurable (Arnett, 1996). A related influence on risky driving is competitiveness, particularly among young males (Arnett, 2002; Krahé & Fenske, 2002; Patil et al., 2006). As Krahé and Fenske (2002) write, men are more likely to ‘‘show a competitive approach to driving’’ (p. 21). Competitiveness may be an important personality characteristic for stunt driving, reflecting perhaps an evolutionary, developmental process of ‘‘the young male syndrome’’ (Wiesenthal & Singhal, 2012; Wilson & Daly, 1985; p. 59). Additionally, positive beliefs and attitudes towards risky driving have consistently been associated with risky driving, often as a mediating variable between thrill/sensation seeking and measures of risky driving (Fernandes et al., 2007; Iversen, 2004; Tranter & Warn, 2008; Ulleberg & Rundmo, 2003; Whissell & Bigelow, 2003). For example, Tranter and Warn (2008) and Ulleberg and Rundmo (2003) found that sensation seeking directly predicted risky driving attitudes and indirectly predicted risky driving, mediated by risky driving attitudes. Additionally, interest in motorsports has been associated with risky driving. The purpose of this study was to examine self-reported stunt driving and the effects of thrill seeking, competitive driving and attitudes towards risky driving on self-reported stunt driving among a sample of car and racing enthusiasts through a web-based survey of car and racing clubs. Car and racing enthusiasts were chosen as an information rich sample to examine relationships among street racing and stunt driving attitudes and behaviours. Car and racing enthusiasts represent a large cohort of attendees at sporting events, as auto racing is listed as the world’s most popular sport, with over 2 billion tickets sold worldwide in 2002 (Gnuschke, 2004). In 2002, auto racing had the highest number of attendees of any sport in the US (Gnuschke, 2004). Yet, car and racing enthusiasts have long been associated with street racing and stunt driving (Armstrong & Steinhardt, 2006; Leal, 2010; Tranter & Warn, 2008; Warn, Tranter, & Kingham, 2004). Warn et al. (2004) examined the relationship between interest in the sport of motor racing, driving violations and illegal street racing among a sample of young male drivers in New Zealand. They found that sensation seeking was directly associated with driving violations and indirectly through motorsport, while interest in motorsport was directly associated with driving violations and indirectly through attitudes to speeding. Moreover, motorsport had a strong direct effect on involvement in street racing, independent of sensation seeking propensity. A subsequent study of mature adults found that although interest in motorsport was associated with higher pro-speed attitudes, no significant relationship between interest in motorsport and speeding violations were found, suggesting heterogeneity among motorsport enthusiasts (Tranter & Warn, 2008). Armstrong and Steinhardt (2006) also found heterogeneity in an exploratory qualitative study of a small sample of car enthusiasts in Queensland; the respondents argued that only a subgroup of car enthusiasts were dangerous drivers. However, no Canadian study has examined a sample of car and racing enthusiasts to determine what proportion of car and racing enthusiasts engaged in risky driving behaviours, reported crash involvement and traffic offences and whether there were differences among those who reported stunt driving vs. those who did not. 2. Method 2.1. Sample Using the Internet, 134 car club and race track websites located in southern Ontario were identified. The car clubs and sanctioned race tracks varied in membership size, type (e.g., Mustang, vintage), coverage (i.e., city, province), active administrators and level of activity on the website/forum. All groups with an active email were invited to participate through electronic information letters sent to the club’s or track’s listed contact person (e.g. webmaster or executive member). The information letters asked if the contact person would be willing to post information about the survey on the website with a link to our online survey. The online survey link included an information letter to the potential respondent and the survey. As we were not sure what the response would be, the electronic information letters were sent out each week to three websites at a time so as to monitor the number of responses received. To maximize response rate, the modified Dillman method was used (Dillman, 2000) in which clubs were sent two reminders. The clubs who agreed to participate posted our invitation on their website. Once posted, club members or visitors were invited to fill out the anonymous survey. Respondents who

E. Vingilis et al. / Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42

33

completed the survey were offered a $5 voucher for a national coffee shop chain. The survey took about 20 min to complete. The University of Western Ontario Ethics Board approved the study. The recruitment period was from June 2, 2010 to February 2, 2011. A total of 111 clubs and race tracks had active email addresses, although it was not possible to assess if mailboxes were ever or frequently viewed. Of these, three refused participation, 29 clubs and race tracks had at least one completed survey and the others never responded for a response rate of clubs and race tracks of 26.1%. Given the nature of the methodology, it was not possible to identify a denominator to determine the response rate of actual respondents to the survey and thus assess the representativeness of the sample. 2.2. Measures The Internet survey was designed using the expert panel method to establish content validity. Using the principles of questionnaire design (Krishner & Guyatt, 1985; Weiler, Sliepcevich & Sarvela, 1993), a panel of 11 traffic safety researchers, psychology academics, police officer and/or car enthusiasts engaged in item generation, review and reduction of a pool of questions primarily based on validated instruments or questions that were developed for other surveys. The Survey Monkey-based questionnaire underwent numerous revisions and was pretested and piloted. The questionnaire comprised 54 questions and included the following variables: (1) Sociodemographic – age (1 = 16–34, 2 = 35 and older) sex (1 = male, 2 = female) and driving exposure (average hours per week spent driving). As the exposure variable was positively skewed, a square root transformation was used in the analyses. (2) Personality variables – (i) Driver Thrill Seeking Scale (DTTS) is an eight item, 7-point Likert-style scale. The DTTS was originally developed as a nine item scale by Matthews, Desmond, Joyner, Carcary, and Kirby (1997) and subsequently revised to an eight item scale by Stradling, Meadows, and Beatty (2004) in which they identified through factor analysis a single factor with the sum of the eight items providing high reliability (a = .91). Each item was scored from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Items included questions such as: ‘‘I get a real thrill out of driving fast; I would like to risk my life as a racing driver; I like to raise my adrenaline levels while driving; I sometimes like to frighten myself a little while driving’’. Higher scores reflected higher driver thrill seeking; (ii) Competitive Attitude Toward Driving Scale (CATDS) is a five item, 4-point Likert-style scale (Patil et al., 2006, a = .81). Items included: ‘‘It’s fun to beat other drivers when the light changes; it’s really satisfying to pass other cars on the highway; it’s a thrill to outmanoeuvre other drivers; it’s fun to weave through slower traffic; taking risks in traffic makes driving more fun’’. Responses ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree and were summed with higher scores representing a more competitive and risky approach to driving. (3) Traffic safety beliefs – (i) Perceived problem opinion scale, developed by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, is an eleven item, 6-point Likert-style scale on perceived seriousness of various road safety issues, such as drivers who run red lights, drowsy drivers, drinking drivers, young drivers, children not secured in safety seats, elderly drivers, distracted drivers, street racing, excessive speeding, hand-held or hands-free cell phone use (Beirness, Mayhew, Simpson, & Desmond, 2004; Singhal, Simpson, Vanlaar, & Mayhew, 2006; Vanlaar, Simpson, Mayhew, et al., 2008). Each item was scored from 1 = not a problem at all to 6 = an extremely serious problem. (ii) Perceived likelihood of crash scale, developed by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, is a seven item, 6-point Likert-style scale, (1 = not at all likely to 6 = extremely likely), on opinions on crash likelihood of drowsy drivers, drinking drivers, young drivers, elderly drivers, distracted drivers, street racers and excessive speeders (Beirness et al., 2004; Singhal et al., 2006; Vanlaar, Simpson, Mayhew, et al., 2008). (4) Attitudes – (i) Attitudes towards Ontario’s Street Racers, Stunt and Aggressive Drivers Legislation was measured by a seven item, 6-point Likert-style scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). This scale queried respondents on the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the different driving offences, such as driving 50 km over speed limit; driving to prevent another vehicle from passing; performing burnouts/doughnuts; wheelies; ghost riding; driving as close as possible to another car or person without reason; driving with a person in the trunk. Items were summed and higher scores reflected more positive attitudes towards the stunt driving legislation. (ii) Attitudes toward street racing and stunt driving were measured by a 12 item, 7-point Likert-style scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) that were a subset of a larger 20 item attitudinal scale with subscales of positive, negative and neutral attitudes by Leal (2010, as for subscales = .62–.84). Items included questions such as: ‘‘I think it’s OK to do things like burnouts, donuts, fish tails, drifting or skids as long as you don’t get caught; we need harsher penalties for street racing; people who race other cars are generally better drivers’’. Questions reflecting negative attitudes were reverse coded and summed with the positive attitude items; higher scores represented more positive attitudes toward street racing and stunt driving. Although these belief and attitude scales were not based on well-established scales, various studies have demonstrated the importance of ‘‘investigating attitudes and beliefs that are specific to each individual risky behavior, rather than general road safety attitudes and beliefs’’ (Fernandes et al., 2007, p. 67, italics in original quote). (5) Driver behaviours – (i) Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ), a modified nine item, Likert-style subscale on violations (1 = never to 6 = nearly all the time), includes the following questions: ‘‘drive even though you are over the legal blood alcohol limit; disregard the speed limits late at night or early in the morning; angered by another

34

E. Vingilis et al. / Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42

driver’s behaviour, you give chase with intention of giving him/her a piece of your mind; cross an intersection knowing that the traffic lights have already turned against you; exceed the speed limit in populated areas; exceed the speed limit on open roads; get involved in unofficial races; drive especially close to the car in front as a signal to its driver to go faster or get out of the way; purposely disregard the speed limit’’ (Davey, Wishart, Freeman, & Watson, 2007; Gras et al., 2006; Reason, Manstead, Stradling, Baxter, & Campbell, 1990; Wills, Watson, & Biggs, 2006). Numerous versions of the DBQ and its violations and other subscales exist (de Winter & Dodou, 2010); they have been psychometrically assessed and found to have acceptable values (Davey et al., 2007, for ordinary violations a = .80, for aggressive violations a = .60; Lajunen, Parker, & Summala, 2004, for aggregated violations a = .75–.80; Krahé & Fenske, 2002, for aggregated violations a = .78–.79; Özkan, Lajunen, El. Chliaoutakis, Parker, & Summala, 2006, for ordinary violations a = .73– .85, for aggressive violations a = .59–.74; Reimer et al., 2005, for aggregated violations a = .82). Questions were summed with higher scores reflecting more and/or more frequent violations while driving. (ii) Self Report Driver Aggression Questionnaire (SRDAQ) is a five item, 6-point Likert-style scale (1 = never to 6 = nearly all the time) of rated likelihood of engaging in five mild, aggressive behaviours (swearing/yelling out of frustration; hand gestures; horn honking out of frustration; purposeful tailgating, flashing high beams) (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2005; a = .75). The scale was found to correlate highly with actual acts of aggression in high congestion conditions (r = .64) (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2005). Higher summed scores connoted higher driver aggression. (iii) Risk-Taking Driving Scale (RTDS) is an eight item, 4-point Likert-style scale, with seven items included in the study (1 = never to 4 = very often) (Patil et al., 2006; a = .83), including questions such as: ‘‘While driving how often do you – take chances for the fun of it; see how fast you can drive out of curiosity; drive dangerously because you enjoy it; test your skills in ways others might find risky.’’ Higher summed scores reflected higher risk-taking driving. (iv) Self-reported collisions during past five years as a driver, and self-reported stop by police for any traffic-related offence in past 12 months were also included as dichotomous variables. (6) Stunt driving – How often participants reported engaging in stunt driving activities, as defined by 2007 Ontario’s Street Racers, Stunt and Aggressive Drivers Legislation, was measured by a seven item, 6-point Likert-style scale (1 = never to 6 = nearly all the time). The scale queried on stunt driving offences (driving 50 km over speed limit; burnouts/doughnuts/drifting; wheelies; ghost riding; driving to prevent another vehicle from passing; driving as close as possible to another car or person without reason; driving with person in trunk). Each item was recoded as those who reported never participating in stunt driving (never = 0) and those participants who reported some participation (all other responses = 1). The scores were summed with higher scores representing more stunt driving. 2.3. Statistical analysis The online survey data were downloaded into a SPSS data file and SPSS was used for the descriptive analyses and the logistic regression. Bivariate analyses (X2s and t-tests) were used to compare differences between respondents who reported stunt driving and those who did not. The results are interpreted using a Bonferroni correction of p = .0014 for 35 comparisons. As there is still debate regarding the best method to use for how to correct for multiple comparisons (e.g. Bender & Lange, 1999; Morgan, 2007; Perneger, 1998), the actual p-values are reported. A sequential logistic regression was performed considering self-reported stunt driving as the dependent variable, and entering age (16–34, 35+), sex and driving exposure as control variables in the first block, personality variables in the second block and attitudes in the third block in order to examine the direct and indirect effects of the predictor variables on the dependent variable. Sequential logistic regression is a commonly used statistic that allows the researcher to assign order of entry of variables based on logical or theoretical considerations and to determine whether prediction of the dependent variable improves with the additional independent variables added to the equation (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The ordering of variables for the sequential logistic regression reflected the conceptualization and findings of causal ordering of personality and attitudinal variables in relation to risky driving identified in other studies (e.g. Horvath & Zuckerman, 1993; Tranter & Warn, 2008; Ulleberg & Rundmo, 2003). IBM SPSS Statistics 20 (IBM SPSS Statistics, 2011) software was used in all analyses. 3. Results A total of 503 respondents completed the survey but 2 cases were deleted as outliers. Table 1 presents the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample. Most of the sample was male and almost half were under 35 years of age. About one third were grade/high school educated, about three fifths were junior/community college or university educated and about one tenth were in trades. The majority were working. Over half required their licence for employment. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the measures and Cronbach’s alphas for each of the scales. Driver Thrill Seeking Scale, Competitive Attitude Toward Driving Scale, traffic safety beliefs, attitude towards Ontario’s stunt driving legislation, attitudes towards street racing/stunt driving, Driver Behaviour Questionnaire subscale, Self-Report Driver Aggression Questionnaire, and Risk-Taking Driving Scale had acceptable Cronbach’s alphas, although self-reported stunt driving behaviours had a Cronbach’s alpha at the borderline of acceptability (.62). The inter-correlations among self-reported variables are presented in Table 3 and show that the correlations are in the expected direction.

35

E. Vingilis et al. / Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42 Table 1 Sociodemographic characteristics of survey. Na

%a

Male Female

428 35

92.4 7.6

Age

16–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65 and above

115 107 45 97 72 27

24.8 23.1 9.7 21.0 15.6 5.8

Educational level

Grade or High school College Trade apprenticeship University

140 148 49 123

30.4 32.2 10.7 26.8

Current employment (click all that apply)

Employed – full-time Employed – part-time Employed – casual Self-employed Studying Retired Not working

248 52 7 91 59 51 27

49.3 10.3 1.4 18.1 10.1 10.1 5.4

Yes No

251 192

56.7 43.3

80 416 127

15.9 82.7 25.2

Respondent characteristics Gender

Type of driver Do you need to drive for your job?

What type of driver’s licence(s) do you currently hold? (click all that apply) Licence Class A-F G M a

N’s do not total 501 because of missing data but percentages are based on valid sample.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and internal consistency of scales. Variables

n

n-items

Range

Sociodemographics Age

463

1

Aver. h/wk driving

455

1

1 = 16–34 2 = 35 + 0–80

Personality variables Driver Thrill Seeking Compet. Attitude Driving

455 457

8 5

8–56 5–20

Traffic safety beliefs Perceived problem Perceived crash likelihood

476 491

11 7

Attitude variables Attitude Ont. legislation Attitudes to street racing

486 448

Driver behaviours DBQ Violations SR Driver Aggression Risk-Taking Driving Stunt driving

a

M

S.D.

1.52

0.50

14.31

11.85

.87 .86

34.45 7.69

10.93 3.00

11–66 7–42

.78 .71

47.56 31.62

7 12

8–48 12–80

.84 .85

33.91 37.24

9.71 14.37

467 468 458

9 5 7

0–34 0–23 7–28

.74 .79 .86

9.45 4.97 9.06

5.56 3.88 3.09

463

7

0–7

.62

1.26

1.40

8.289 4.993

The majority of respondents had supportive attitudes towards Ontario’s Street Racers, Stunt and Aggressive Drivers Legislation. As Fig. 1 indicates, respondents agreed most with the new offences regarding driving while not sitting in the driver’s seat, not having a person in the trunk, or not driving as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or object on or near the highway without a reason. They agreed the least with police powers of impoundment and on-the-spot licence suspensions as well as driving more than 50 km over the posted speed limit. The majority of respondents also reported not engaging in stunt driving activities. As Fig. 2 shows, over 80% of respondents reported never engaging in these new offences, except for driving 50 km or more over the speed limit and spinning the vehicle or causing it to circle in which 64.5% and 60.7% reported never engaging in these activities, respectively.

36

E. Vingilis et al. / Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42

Table 3 Comparison of stunt driving and non stunt driving respondents. Variables

No stunt driving

Stunt driving

N

%

N

%

Demographics Age (p < .001) 16–34 35 and older

65 111

37.0 63.0

153 127

54.6 45.4

Gender (p = .047) Male Female Aver. h/wk driving (t =

157 19 173

89.2 10.8 M = 3.44

264 16 274

94.3 5.7 M = 3.59

Personality variables Driver Thrill Seeking Scale (t = 8.23, df = 446, p < .001) Competitive Attitude Toward Driving (t = 7.22, df = 448, p < .001)

172 175

M = 29.21 M = 6.48

276 275

M = 37.84 M = 8.46

Beliefs Perceived problem opinion (serious/extremely serious) Children not secured (p = .742) Excessive speeding (p < .001) Red light running (p = .009) Young drivers (p = .014) Hand-held phone use (p = .015) Hands-free phone use (p = .120) Distracted driving (p = .110) Drowsy driving (p = .039) Drinking driving (p = .476) Street racing (p < .001) Elderly (p = .003)

92 107 141 41 140 48 140 105 137 111 49

51.4 59.4 78.8 22.8 78.2 26.8 78.7 59.0 76.5 61.7 27.2

140 94 189 39 191 58 203 137 206 88 114

49.8 33.6 67.5 13.9 67.7 20.6 72.0 49.1 73.6 31.3 41.0

Perceived likelihood of crash (likely/extremely likely) Drinking drivers (p = .331) Excessive speeders (p < .001) Distracted drivers (p = .096) Drowsy drivers (p = .032) Elderly drivers (p = .081) Young drivers (p = .039) Street racers (p < .001)

160 113 142 127 54 51 124

88.9 62.8 78.9 71.3 30.0 28.3 69.3

241 106 203 173 107 56 135

85.8 37.7 72.0 61.6 37.9 20.0 47.9

Attitudes (agree/strongly agree) Ontario’s stunt driving law sections 50 km over speed limit (p < .001) Ghost riding (p = .004) Prevent car from passing (p = .002) Driving with person in trunk (p = .025) Driving close as possible to other (p = .003) Performing wheelies (p < .001) Performing doughnuts/burnouts (p < .001) Attitude towards street racing/stunt driving (t =

87 148 110 127 8 119 92 167

48.6 82.2 61.1 71.3 70.0 66.1 51.7 M = 29.73

57 198 130 171 158 115 64 259

20.1 70.5 46.4 61.1 56.0 40.9 22.7 M = 41.7

175 174 174 32 21

M = 6.29 M = 3.56 M = 7.60 17.8 11.7

279 280 277 66 88

M = 11.34 M = 5.86 M = 9.99 23.3 31.1

1.14, df = 445, p = .256)

9.21, df = 424, p < .001)

Driver behaviours Driver behaviour Q. (t = 10.47, df = 452, p < .001) Self report driver aggression Q. (t = 6.41, df = 452, p < .001) Risk-taking driving scale (t = 8.57, df = 449, p < .001) Driver in collision in past 5 years (p = .155) Stopped for traffic offence in past year (p < .001)

3.1. Stunt drivers vs. non-stunt drivers Interesting differences emerged in demographics, personality, beliefs, attitudes, and driving behaviour variables when the data were disaggregated between those who reported engaging in at least one stunt driving activity and those who reported never engaging in a stunt driving activity. As Table 4 suggests, a significantly greater proportion of stunt drivers compared to non-stunt drivers were younger (54.6% vs. 37.0%). Beliefs and attitudes also differed between the two groups. A significantly lower proportion of respondents reporting stunt driving viewed excessive speeding (33.6% vs. 59.4%) and street racing (31.3% vs. 61.7%) as a serious or extremely serious traffic safety problem. Similarly, a significantly lower proportion of self-reported stunt driving respondents perceived likelihood/extreme likelihood of collision among excessive speeders (37.7% vs. 62.8%) and street racers (47.9% vs. 69.3%) compared to respondents not reporting stunt driving. A significantly lower proportion of respondents reporting stunt driving agreed/strongly agreed with the different sections of Ontario’s stunt driving laws

E. Vingilis et al. / Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42

37

Fig. 1. Percentage of respondents who strongly or very strongly agreed with Ontario’s stunt driving legislation.

Fig. 2. Percentage of respondents who reported never engaging in stunt driving activities.

and they had a significantly more positive attitude on the stunt driving and street racing scale. Personality measures also exhibited between group differences. Respondents reporting stunt driving had significantly higher scores on the Driver Thrill Seeking (mean = 37.84 vs. mean = 29.21) and Competitive Attitude Toward Driving Scales (mean = 8.46 vs. 6.48) compared to respondents not reporting stunt driving. Differences were found for driving behaviours. On the DBQ subscale (mean = 11.34 vs. mean 6.29), Self-Reported Driving Aggression Questionnaire (5.86 vs. 3.56) and Risk-Taking Driving Scale (mean = 9.99 vs. mean 7.60), respondents reporting stunt driving had significantly higher scores, and a greater proportion reported traffic offences (31.1% vs. 11.7%) compared to respondents not reporting stunt driving, although there were no significant differences in collisions (23.3% vs. 17.8%) between the two groups. 3.2. Predictors of stunt driving Table 5 provides the results of the sequential logistic regression. In block 1 the control variables of age, sex and driving exposure provided statistically significant improvement over the constant only model (X2 = 20.788, df = 3, p < .001). Only the odds ratio for age showed significance; respondents 35 and older were about half as likely to report stunt driving (OR = .474, CI .311–.724). In block 2, the entry of Driver Thrill Seeking and Competitive Attitude Toward Driving Scales significantly improved the model, over and above that accounted for by the control variables (X2 = 67.3740, df = 2, p < .001) with both measures showing significant odds ratios. For every one point increase in the DTSS, the odds of self-reported stunt driving increased 1.063 (CI 1.037–1.089). Similarly, with every one point increase in the CATDS, the odds of self-reported stunt driving increased 1.218 (CI 1.0999–1.351). The inclusion of these personality measures substantially reduced the association between age and self-reported stunt driving. When attitudes towards Ontario’s stunt driving laws and towards stunt driving and street racing were added in block 3, the model showed further improvement (X2 = 28.134, df = 2, p < .001). The final model correctly classified 55.0% of cases who did not report stunt driving, 81.5% of the cases who did report stunt driving, and 71.2% of cases overall at a cut-off value of .500. Examination of odds ratios showed that those with more positive attitudes toward Ontario’s stunt driving legislation had significantly lower odds of reporting stunt driving (OR = .968, CI .942–.996), while those with more positive attitudes towards street racing and stunt driving had significantly higher odds of reporting stunt driving (OR = 1.040, CI 1.018–1.062).

38

E. Vingilis et al. / Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42

Table 4 Sequential logistic regression analysis for stunt driving (N = 389). Stunt driving S.E.

Wald

df

Sig.

Odds ratios

.455

.104

19.125

1

.000

1.576

.746 .759 .154 .369

.216 .412 .084 .328

11.929 3.385 3.342 1.264

1 1 1 1

.001 .066 .068 .261

.474 .468 1.167 1.447

.311–.724 .209–1.051 .989–1.376

.457 .800 .137 .061 .198 3.238

.238 .506 .094 .013 .053 .609

3.690 2.496 2.135 23.517 14.011 28.278

1 1 1 1 1 1

.055 .114 .144 .000 .000 .000

.633 .449 1.147 1.063 1.218 .039

.398–1.009 .167–1.212 .954–1.378 1.037–1.089 1.099–1.351

.240 .423 .172 .055 .144 .032 .039 3.183

.252 .515 .100 .013 .056 .014 .011 .915

.911 .676 2.939 17.416 6.694 5.050 13.505 12.093

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

.340 .411 .086 .000 .010 .025 .000 .001

.787 .655 1.187 1.056 1.155 .968 1.040 .041

.480–1.288 .239–1.796 .976–1.445 1.030–1.084 1.035–1.288 .942–.996 1.018–1.062

b Block 0 (Constant) Block 1 Age Gender Aver. h/wk driving (Constant) X2 = 20.788, df = 3, p = .000 2 Log likelihood = 498.857 Block 2 Age Gender Aver. h/wk driving Driver thrill seeking Compet. Att. (Constant) X2 = 88.162, df = 5, p 6 .000 2 Log likelihood = 431.484 Block 3 Age Gender Aver. h/wk driving Driver thrill seeking Compet. Att. Att. ON legislation Att. street racing (Constant) X2 = 116.296, df = 7 p < .000 2 Log likelihood = 403.350

95% CI

4. Discussion This study is the first to examine stunt driving activities and correlates among a sample of car and racing enthusiasts in Ontario, Canada. The results of this study support the exploratory qualitative study of Armstrong and Steinhardt (2006) that car and racing enthusiasts are a heterogeneous group with a smaller subgroup who engage in illegal stunt driving activities. These results also support Fuller’s (2007) perception that car and racing enthusiasts are unfairly tarnished with the brush of ‘‘moral panic’’ that is, public’s fear of what the group represents rather than of what the car and racing enthusiasts are actually doing, although Fuller does acknowledge that: ‘‘There are certainly some car enthusiasts who enjoy the rush of doing (or watching) burnouts and street racing’’ (p. 131). The current study indicates that among a sample of persons who are car and racing enthusiasts, stunt driving, as defined by the Ontario’s Street Racers, Stunt and Aggressive Drivers Legislation, is not a commonly reported activity. Less than 20% of respondents reported engaging in most stunt driving activities. However, driving 50 km over speed limit and trying to spin the vehicle or cause it to circle (burnouts, doughnuts) was reported by about 40% of the sample. Interestingly, the stunt driving activity of driving 50 km over the speed limit is the most legally contentious subsection of the legislation, as one judge ruled that the subsection was unconstitutional and the Ontario Court of Appeal subsequently overruled the judge and upheld the legislation (Alcoba, 2010; Canadian Press, 2010; Wilson, 2009). However, this study does show clear differences between those who reported stunt driving and those who did not. A greater percentage of stunt drivers were younger (16–34 years of age). Significant differences were also found between the self-reported stunt drivers and non-stunt drivers on personality characteristics, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. The responses to the belief questions on perceived seriousness of various drivers and driving behaviours show between-group differences for some questions, but not for others. For example, almost twice as many self-reported non-stunt drivers considered excessive speeding (non-stunt drivers = 59.4% vs. stunt drivers = 33.6%) and street racing (non-stunt drivers = 61.7% vs. stunt drivers = 31.3%) a serious or extremely serious problem compared to self-reported stunt drivers. The perceptions of the non-stunt drivers regarding excessive speeding and racing are comparable to a representative sample of Canadians of whom 68.7% were very or extremely concerned with street racing and 67.9% with excessive speeding (Vanlaar, Simpson, Mayhew, et al., 2008). However, there were no differences between both groups on road safety issues such as drinking driving, distracted driving and children unsecured in car seats. These differences may reflect normative consensus and attitudes about different types of offences. Historically criminal law theory ‘‘has distinguished between actions that are immoral in their own right, mala per se, and actions which are illegal because they are prohibited by law, mala quia prohibita’’ (Andenaes, 1966, p. 957). It

E. Vingilis et al. / Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42

39

may be that offences, such as drinking driving, have become mala per se over the years, and currently reflect the moral codes of society (Andenaes, 1966; Vingilis, 1990). It may also reflect the personal experiences of the stunt drivers and non-stunt drivers. Risk perception research has shown that the more experience one has in engaging in an activity, the less risky it is judged to be (Horvath & Zuckerman, 1993). Additionally, the differential levels of concern could reflect the ‘‘bandwagon effect’’, whereby people’s levels of concern are affected by how concerned they think others are about various road safety issues (Vanlaar, Simpson, & Robertson, 2008, p. 1672). Presumably car and racing enthusiasts who engage in stunt driving may interact with like-minded persons and thus they may feel that others are less concerned about speeding and racing. Self-reported stunt drivers were also significantly less likely to agree/strongly agree with the various subsections of Ontario’s stunt driving legislation and had significantly more positive attitudes towards street racing and stunt driving compared to self-reported non-stunt drivers. Self-reported stunt drivers also scored significantly higher on the DBQ subscale, the Self-Report Driver Aggression Questionnaire and the Risk-Taking Driving Scale compared to self-reported non-stunt drivers. Almost three times as many self-reported stunt drivers reported being stopped for a traffic offence in the past year compared to self-reported non-stunt drivers, although there were no between-group differences in collisions in the past five years. However, the small sample size may explain the lack of between group differences in collisions. The sequential logistic regression showed that personality characteristics and attitudes provided unique contributions to the model in predicting stunt driving. These findings are consistent with international studies that have examined risky driving in general (e.g. Arnett, 1996; Arnett et al., 1997; Dahlen et al., 2005; Jonah, 1997; Ulleberg & Rundmo, 2003), although only a few studies have specifically examined stunt driving (e.g. Leal et al., 2007; Palk et al., 2011; Thake et al., 2011; Tranter & Warn, 2008). Although an age effect was found in block 1, the personality variables subsumed the age effect on the likelihood of stunt driving. Driver thrill seeking was associated with increased odds of stunt driving, not surprisingly as the different stunt driving activities may be motived by the need for novel and intense stimulation that thrill seekers find rewarding (Arnett, 1996). Horvath and Zuckerman (1993) write: ‘‘high sensation seekers may show progressive reduction of perceived risk and increased confidence in their ability to avoid negative outcomes, while low sensation seekers may remain apprehensive and uncertain about outcomes. In this case, the high sensation seekers would be inclined to repeat the experience while the lows would not’’ (p. 50). A complementary characteristic for which there is less information is competitiveness in driving. Researchers have identified competitiveness as an important motivation for risky driving (e.g. Krahé & Fenske, 2002; Taubman-Ben-Ari, Mikulincer, & Iram, 2004), although it has often been operationally defined as aggressiveness (Arnett, 2002; Krahé & Fenske, 2002). Patil et al. (2006), using the Competitive Attitude Toward Driving Scale as an outcome variable, found relationships between competitive attitude and risk-taking propensity and tolerance of deviation among men and between competitive attitude and risk-taking propensity, hostility, aggression, achievement expectations and tolerance of deviation among women. In the current study, those who scored higher on the Competitive Attitude Toward Driving Scale showed significantly increased odds of stunt driving. The attitude measures also showed unique contribution to the final model. Those with most positive attitudes towards Ontario’s stunt driving legislation had lower odds of reporting stunt driving, while those with more positive attitudes towards street racing and stunt driving had higher odds of reporting stunt driving. Tranter and Warn (2008) and Ulleberg and Rundmo (2003), using structural equation modelling, found that sensation seeking directly predicted stunt driving attitudes and indirectly predicted stunt driving, mediated by stunt driving attitudes, suggesting that sensation or thrill seekers may develop less negative attitudes towards stunt driving and thus may engage in more stunt driving because of the perception that it is less risky. However, in the current study there is no evidence that the inclusion of attitudes reduced the effects, indicating substantial independence across underlying constructs. Limitations of this study include the use of self-report measures, the use of previously unvalidated measures, the disproportionately large number of males in the sample and the unknown response rate/representativeness of the sample. Thus, these results might be particular to a sample of car and racing enthusiasts. Indeed, contrary to some other studies, sex did not predict stunt driving within the logistic regression. However, persons accessing car and racing club websites are drivers who would be more likely to be racing enthusiasts (Vingilis et al., 2011) and thus be an important subculture by which to examine street racing and stunt driving behaviours, as a population-based sample might not have a large enough sample of stunt drivers. A study of a similarly aged representative sample of Ontario residents examined prevalence of street racing in the last year and found only 1% self-reported street racing (Smart et al., 2011). 5. Conclusions In summary, although self-reported stunt drivers represent a small percentage of our sample of car and racing enthusiasts, their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours are of concern. Vingilis and Wilk (2010), in a longitudinal, population-based study, found that speeding significantly increased the odds of a subsequent motor vehicle injury. When controlling for age, sex, education and household income, the odds for respondents who reported sometimes, rarely or never obeying the speed limits were two and one half times higher in reporting being subsequently injured in a collision compared respondents who reported mostly or always obeying the speed limits. Although no official statistics are available on stunt-drivingrelated fatalities, 40% of Canada’s speeding fatalities were represented by drivers between the ages of 16 and 24 even though this age group represents 13% of all licensed drivers (Transport Canada, 2008). It is reasonable to assume that some speedrelated fatalities are stunt driving-related but not listed as such because of the challenge for police to find witnesses to a

40

E. Vingilis et al. / Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42

stunt driving activity. A challenge is to affect stunt drivers’ level of concern about their risky driving behaviours. Vanlaar, Simpson, and Robertson (2008) indicate that a person’s own concern is determined in part by his/her perception of other people’s level of concern and by the risks associated with the behaviour. Stunt drivers may see few risks with their behaviours as indicated by some comments of stunt drivers in the open-ended section of the survey: ‘‘Don’t waste your time trying to bust street racers. They aren’t a threat. Bust the guys who drive in and out of traffic, drink and drive, talk on the cell phone with a coffee and smoke in hand while driving an escalade. They’re the threat. Out of everyone I know, the casual drivers are more dangerous. They get more tickets and get into more accidents than the racers I know. Why? Because a racer is confident about the abilities of himself in his car [sic]. His suspension is modified to take that corner better, which means if someone is an idiot, he can swirve [sic] around them if need be, safely, and keep on going. His brakes are better so that if there is an accident infront [sic] of him, he can slam his brakes knowing that he has the braking force to slow the car down in time before he makes the accident bigger.’’ ‘‘i feel that speed is not a factor in making driving dangerous. driving become [sic] dangerous with the people who don’t know how to drive.’’ Interventions could present other people’s perceptions and level of concern, possibly the perceptions of young women, whose opinions may be of interest to young male stunt drivers. One example of an intervention that targeted young male stunt drivers is the Australian pinkie commercials called ‘‘Speeding. No one thinks big of you’’ (Strategic Communications, n.d.). This award winning advertising campaign, commissioned by the Transport Roads and Maritime Services of New South Wales (Australia), showed young and also older women responding to a ‘‘hooning’’ young man driving by them by rolling their eyes and waving their baby finger at the offending driver (Wiesenthal, Lustman, & Roseborough, 2014). The waving pinkie finger was supposed to convey an insult about sexual inadequacy resulting in over-compensatory displays of hooning behaviour (Wiesenthal et al., 2014). Although no control group was used in the study and limited information was provided on the adequacy of the pre-post design, speeding tickets, ‘‘high-risk’’ speeding tickets and crashes decreased following the campaign (Anonymous, 2009). Moreover, an independent survey found that 60% of the general population and 75% of young males recognized the message’s meaning that speeding is stupid and fails to impress the opposite sex (Transport Roads, 2010). Other interventions could be legislative. Preliminary findings for Ontario’s Street Racers, Stunt and Aggressive Drivers Legislation indicated that speeding-related fatalities decreased by about 50% from 2007 to 2009 on the highways that the Ontario Provincial Police patrol (Transport Canada, 2011). These interventions may hold some promise, but they need full evaluations. In summary, there is public concern over street racing and stunt driving. Yet, the research is limited on the topic (Vingilis & Smart, 2009). This study suggests that a small group of car and racing enthusiasts may be of increased risk of offences but not crashes, although more research is needed to examine further what risks are associated with these activities. Acknowledgements This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada. The authors would like to thank Drs. William Newby, Peter Fischer, Kerry Armstrong and Christine Wickens and P.O. Alvin Ward (ret.) for their contributions to the development of the questionnaire. This research was also parlty supported by a grant from AUTO21, a member of the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) program, which is administered and funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), in partnership with Industry Canada. References Alcoba, N. (2010). Ontario to appeal unconstitutional street-racing law. Driving.ca. August 3, 2010. (Retrieved 08.08.12). Andenaes, J. (1966). The general preventive effects of punishment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 114(7), 949–983. Anonymous. (2009). Roads and Traffic Authority. Speeding. No one thinks big of you. Clemenger BBDO: Sydney, Australia. Armstrong, K., & Steinhardt, D. A. (2005). Understanding street racing and ‘hoon’ culture: An exploratory investigation of perceptions and experiences. In Proceedings of the Australasian road safety research, policing and education conference, Wellington, New Zealand. Armstrong, K., & Steinhardt, D. A. (2006). Understanding street racing and ‘hoon’ culture: An exploratory investigation of perceptions and experiences. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 17(1), 38–44. Arnett, J. J. (1996). Sensation seeking, aggressiveness, and adolescent reckless behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(6), 693–702. Arnett, J. J. (2002). Developmental sources of crash risk in young drivers. Injury Prevention, 8(2), ii17–ii23. Arnett, J. J., Offer, D., & Fine, M. A. (1997). Reckless driving in adolescence: ‘State’ and ‘trait’ factors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29(1), 57–63. Beirness, D., Mayhew, D. R., Simpson, H. M., & Desmond, K. (2004). The road safety monitor 2004: Young drivers. Ottawa, Canada: Traffic Injury Research Foundation. Bender, R., & Lange, S. (1999). Multiple test procedures other than Bonferroni’s deserve wider use. British Medical Journal, 318(7183), 600. Bina, M., Graziano, F., & Bonino, S. (2006). Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(3), 472–481. Burns, P. C., & Wilde, G. L. S. (1995). Risk taking in male taxi drivers: Relationships among personality, observational data and driver records. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(2), 267–278. Canadian Press (2010). Ontario street racing rules upheld (March 18, 2010). (Retrieved 09.08.12). Clément, R., & Jonah, B. (1984). Field dependence, sensation seeking and driving behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 5(1), 87–93. Dahlen, E. R., Martin, R. C., Ragan, K., & Kuhlman, M. M. (2005). Driving anger, sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and boredom proneness in the prediction of unsafe driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 341–348.

E. Vingilis et al. / Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42

41

Davey, J., Wishart, D., Freeman, J., & Watson, B. (2007). An application of the driver behaviour questionnaire in an Australian organizational fleet setting. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10, 11–21. de Winter, J. C. F., & Dodou, D. (2010). The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire as a predictor of accidents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 41, 463–470. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: J. Wiley. Donovan, J. E., & Jessor, R. (1985). Structure of problem behaviour in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 890–904. Falconer, R., & Kingham, S. (2007). ‘Driving people crazy’: A geography of boy racers in Christchurch, New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer, 63, 181–191. Fernandes, R., Soames Job, R. F., & Hatfield, J. (2007). A challenge to the assumed generalizability of prediction and countermeasure for risky driving: Different factors predict different risky driving behaviors. Journal of Safety Research, 38, 59–70. Folkman, L. -M. (2005). Queensland’s anti-hoon legislation and policing methods used to prevent hooning behavior. In Proceedings of the Australasian road safety research, policing and education conference, Wellington, New Zealand. Fuller, G. (2007). The Hoon: Controlling the Streets? In S. Poynting & G. Morgan (Eds.), OUTRAGEOUS!: Moral Panics in Australia. Hobart: ACYS Press. Gee Kee, A., Palk, G., & Steinhardt, D. A. (2007). Hoon driving behaviour: Prevalence, associated characteristics and crashes. In 2007 Australasian road safety research, policing and education conference, Melbourne, Australia. Girard, 2007, D. (2007). Police work to ERASE street racing. The star, wheels section July 9, 2007. (Retrieved 22.02.13). Gnuschke, J. E. (2004). Economic impact of the Memphis Motorsport Park. Business Perspectives, 16(3), 2–9. Gras, M. E., Sullman, M. J. M., Cunill, M., Planes, M., Aymerich, M., & Font-Mayolas, S. (2006). Spanish drivers and their aberrant driving behaviours. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 9, 129–137. Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (2001). Gender, driver aggression, and driver violence: An applied evaluation. Sex Roles, 44, 661–676. Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (2005). Driving vengeance and willful violations: Clustering of problem driving attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 61–79. ‘‘Highway Traffic Act’’ in Ontario Regulations (May 1, 2009). Races, contests and stunts (vol. 455/07). (Retrieved 02.06.11). Horvath, P., & Zuckerman, M. (1993). Sensation seeking, risk appraisal, and risky behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(1), 41–52. IBM SPSS Statistics (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics v. 20.0.0. An IBM Company, Somers, NY. Iversen, H. (2004). Risk-taking attitudes and risky driving behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7, 135–150. Jonah, B. (1997). Sensation seeking and risky driving: A review and synthesis of the literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29(5), 651–655. Knight, S., Cook, L. J., & Olson, L. M. (2004). The fast and the fatal: Street racing fatal crashes in the United States. Injury Prevention, 10, 53–55. Krahé, B., & Fenske, I. (2002). Predicting aggressive driving behavior: The role of macho personality, age and power of car. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 21–29. Krishner, B., & Guyatt, G. (1985). A methodological framework for assessing health indices. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 38(1), 27–36. Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Summala, H. (2004). The Manchester driver behaviour questionnaire: A cross-cultural study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 231–238. Leal, N. L., Watson, B. C., & King, M. (2007). Hooning offenders and offences: Who and what are we dealing with? In Proceedings of the Australasian road safety research, policing and education conference, Melbourne, Australia. Leal, N. L., Watson, B. C., & Armstrong, K. A. (2010). Managing illegal street racing and associated risky driving behaviour: An Australian perspective. In Proceedings of the 20th Canadian multidisciplinary road safety conference, June 6–9, 2010, Niagara Falls, Ontario. . Leal, N. L., & Watson, B. C. (2011). The road safety implications of illegal street racing and associated risky driving behaviours: An analysis of offences and offenders. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1547–1554. Leal, N. L. (2010). Illegal street racing and associated (hooning) behaviours. Ph.D. Thesis. Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety, Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Li, Z., Knight, S., Cook, L. J., Hyde, L., Holubkov, R., & Olson, L. (2008). Modeling motor vehicle crashes for street racers using zero-inflated models. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 835–839. Matthews, G., Desmond, P. A., Joyner, L., Carcary, B., & Kirby, G. (1997). A comprehensive questionnaire measure of driver stress and affect. In J. A. Rothengatter & E. Carbonell Vaya (Eds.), Traffic and transport psychology: Theory and application (pp. 317–324). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Ministry of Transport of Ontario (MTO) (2006). Ontario road safety annual report, 2004. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. Morgan, J. F. (2007). P value fetishism and use of the Bonferroni adjustment. Evidence Based Mental Health, 10, 34–35. NSW Government, Strategic Communications. (n.d.). Speeding – No one thinks big of you. (Retrieved 23.05.13). Özkan, T., Lajunen, T., El. Chliaoutakis, J., Parker, D., & Summala, K. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in driving behaviours: A comparison of six countries. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 9, 227–242. Palk, G., Freeman, J., Gee Kee, A., Steinhardt, D., & Davey, J. (2011). The prevalence and characteristics of self-reported dangerous driving behaviours among a young cohort. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14, 147–154. Patil, S. M., Shope, J. T., Raghunathan, T. E., & Bingham, R. (2006). The role of personality characteristics in young adult driving. Traffic Injury Prevention, 7(4), 328–334. Peak, K., & Glensor, R. (2004). Street racing (Rep. No. 28). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Perneger, T. V. (1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical Journal, 316, 1236–1238. Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and violations on the roads: A real distinction? Ergonomics, 33(10&11), 1315–1332. Reimer, B., D’Ambrosio, L. A., Gilbert, J., Coughlin, J. F., Biederman, J., Surman, C., et al (2005). Behavior differences in drivers with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: The driving behavior questionnaire. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 996–1004. Royal, D. (2003). National survey of speeding and unsafe driving attitudes and behaviors: 2002, vol. II – Findings report (Rep. No. DOT HS 809 688). Washington, DC: US DOT, NHTSA, Office of Research and Technology. Singhal, D., Simpson, H., Vanlaar, W., & Mayhew, D. (2006). The Road Safety Monitor: Public awareness and concern about road safety. Ottawa, Canada: Traffic Injury Research Foundation. Smart, R., Mann, R. E., Stoduto, G., Ialomiteanu, A., Wickens, C., & Vingilis, E. (2012). Is there a link between street racing and mental health? Australasian Psychiatry, 20, 166–167. Smart, R. G., Stoduto, G., Vingilis, E., Wickens, C. M., Mann, R. E., & Ialomiteanu, A. (2011). Preliminary results for street racing among adults in Ontario: Relations to alcohol and cannabis use. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 102(5), 398. Stradling, S., Meadows, M., & Beatty, S. (2004). Characteristics and crash-involvement of speeding, violating and thrill-seeking drivers. In T. Rothengatter & R. D. Huguenin (Eds.), Traffic and transport psychology: Theory and application (pp. 177–192). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., Mikulincer, M., & Iram, A. (2004). A multi-factorial framework for understanding reckless driving-appraisal indicators and perceived environmental determinants. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7, 333–349. Thake, C. L., Armstrong, K. A., & Leal, N. L. (2011). The role of personality in predicting honing-related driving behaviour. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety (February), 40–45. Transport Canada (2008). A quick look at speeding crashes in Canada. Rep. No. RS-2008-07. Ottawa: Transport Canada. Transport Canada (2011). Road safety in Canada. (Retrieved 22.02.13).

42

E. Vingilis et al. / Transportation Research Part F 21 (2013) 30–42

Transport Roads & Maritime Services. New South Wales (2010). Speeding! No one thinks big of you. The Pinkie Campaign. (Retrieved 28.08.12). Tranter, P., & Warn, J. (2008). Relationships between interest in motor racing and driver attitudes and behaviour amongst mature drivers: An Australian case study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 1683–1689. Ulleberg, P., & Rundmo, T. (2003). Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Safety Science, 41, 427–443. Vanlaar, W., Simpson, H., Mayhew, D., & Robertson, R. (2008). Aggressive driving: A survey of attitudes, opinions and behaviors. Journal of Safety Research, 39, 375–381. Vanlaar, W., Simpson, H., & Robertson, R. (2008). A perceptual map for understanding concern about unsafe driving behaviours. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 1667–1673. Vingilis, E., Seeley, J., Newby, W., Wiesenthal, D., Wickens, C. M., Mann, R. E., et al. (2011). Opinions, attitudes and driving experiences of car and racing ‘‘enthusiasts’’: Results of the Ontario car and racing club survey. In Proceedings of the 21st Canadian multidisciplinary road safety conference, Niagara Falls, Canada. Vingilis, E., & Smart, R. G. (2009). Street racing: A neglected research area? Traffic Injury Prevention, 10, 148–156. Vingilis, E., & Wilk, P. (2010). Self-reported motor vehicle injury prevention strategies, risky driving behaviours, and subsequent motor vehicle injuries: Analysis of Canadian National Population Health Survey. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, 36(1), s69–s80. Vingilis, E. (1990). A new look at deterrence. In R. J. Wilson & R. E. Mann (Eds.), Drinking and driving: Advances in research and prevention (pp. 99–115). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Warn, J. R., Tranter P. J., & Kingham, S. (2004). Fast and furious 3: Illegal street racing, sensation seeking and risky driving behaviours in New Zealand. In 27th Australasian transport research forum, Adelaide, Australia. Weiler, R. M., Sliepcevich, E. M., & Sarvela, P. D. (1993). Development of the adolescent health concerns inventory. Health Education Quarterly, 20, 569–583. Whissell, R. W., & Bigelow, B. J. (2003). The speeding attitude scale and the role of sensation seeking in profiling young drivers at risk. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 81–820. Wiesenthal, D. L., Lustman, M., & Roseborough, J. (2014). Aggressive driving: Current perspectives in theory and research. In A. Smiley (Ed.), Human factors in traffic safety (3rd ed). Tucson, AZ, USA: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company (in press). Wiesenthal, D. L., & Singhal, D. M. (2012). Evolutionary psychology, demography and driver safety research: A theoretical synthesis. In L. S. C. Roberts (Ed.), Applied evolutionary psychology (pp. 399–413). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Wills, A. R., Watson, B., & Biggs, H. C. (2006). Comparing safety climate factors as predictors of work-related driving behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 37, 375–383. Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 59–63. Wilson, A. (2009). Challenging the Ontario racing law. SLAW (July 21, 2009). (Retrieved 08.08.12).