1
WHO DESERVES
POLICE ATTENTION?
A study of fatal road traffic accidents during 2004 and 2005
Special report issued by the Norwegian National Mobile Police Service, no. 2/ 2009
2
FOREWORD
The National Mobile Police Service (NMPS) has carried out a study of fatal road traffic accidents
that occurred during 2004 and 2005. The main aim was to identify the distinctive characteristics
of drivers who exhibit particularly risky behaviour in road traffic situations. This report presents
the major findings of the project during which the NMPS has received assistance from SINTEF
Technology and Society in the form of a literature study. The report is divided into tree parts. Part
1 consists of an analysis of police documents related to all fatal road traffic accidents that
occurred in Norway in 2004 and 2005, Part 2 is a literature study of research findings in this field
and Part 3 is conclusion and measure.
NMPS wishes to extend its thanks to SINTEF and the police constabularies involved for their
excellent co-operative efforts. SINTEF has appointed Senior Research Scientist Dagfinn Moe as
Project Manager, assisted by Marianne Elvsaas Nordtømme. Adviser Live Tanum Pasnin from
NMPS, Police Attorney Gunleik Smestad and Chief Constable Svein Løsnæs shared overall
responsibility.
Stavern, August 2009
Odd Reidar Humlegård
Head of the National Mobile Police Service
3
SUMMARY
In 2007, NMPS initiated a study of fatal road accidents which occurred during the years 2004 and
2005. The aim of the study was to learn more about the causes of the accidents, the people who
lost their lives, the extent to which these individuals were exposed to risk, and how many died
without taking any form of risk. In this study, NMPS focus primarily on the people involved in
the accidents, and less on the vehicles and prevailing road conditions.
Once the project was underway, co-operation was initiated with the SINTEF Group in order to
compile a literature study related to risk-prone drivers. The literature study deals with the
identification of drivers who exhibit risky behaviour in road traffic situations.
The report consists of tree parts. Part 1 is a study of fatal road accidents which occurred in
Norway in 2004 and 2005, Part 2 comprises a literature study of research findings in this field and
Part 3 is conclusion and measure.
Part I - A study of case documents pertaining to criminal proceedings related to fatal road
accidents which occurred in the period 2004-2005
The study of fatal road accidents includes all accidents (425 in total, involving 476 fatalities)
recorded by the police during the 2-year period 2004-2005. A single perpetrator was identified for
each accident (250 perpetrators were killed during the accidents, whereas 175 survived). About
half of the sample of perpetrators (219 individuals) were judged to have exhibited blameworthy
driver behaviour which caused the accident in question. Three types of blameworthy behaviour
were identified:
Impaired driving due to the influence of drugs and/or alcohol
Speeding
Aggressive driving
In some cases a combination of different types of blameworthy behaviour led to the accident in
question. Speeding was the most common form of blameworthy behaviour. Impaired driving due
to the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, either alone, or in combination with speeding, also
represented an important cause of accidents, whereas aggressive driving was of less frequent
occurrence. Many of the drivers who exhibited blameworthy behaviour were young and, to a large
extent, male. The average age of perpetrators exhibiting blameworthy behaviour was 32, while
that of perpetrators exhibiting non-blameworthy behaviour was 47. Drivers under the age of 20
make up only 5 per cent of perpetrators who exhibited non-blameworthy behaviour, but 24 per
cent of blameworthy drivers. In particular, young drivers are often blameworthy in accidents
involving high speed. The proportion of young drivers is lower in accidents where driver
impairment due to the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is the main cause of accident (either alone
or in combination with speeding) than in accidents in which speeding alone was involved.
As many as 51 % of blameworthy drivers have previous criminal convictions, in contrast to only
18 % of non-blameworthy drivers. In both groups, road traffic offences and crimes for personal
gain represent the most common categories of offence. In addition, there is a tendency among
blameworthy drivers to have previous convictions for several types of criminal activity. In
statistical terms, perpetrators in accidents caused by driver impairment due to the influence of
drugs and/or alcohol represented the group with the most previous convictions.
Accidents resulting from blameworthy behaviour occur more frequently during spring and
summer, with 30 percent occurring in summer compared with 20 percent during the winter.
Accidents not caused by blameworthy behaviour are more evenly distributed throughout the year.
Similarly, accidents resulting from blameworthy behaviour occur less frequently on weekdays,
4
but are more common during the weekends than accidents resulting from non-blameworthy
behaviour. They also occur more frequently during the evenings/at night than during the daytime.
A total of 226 people identified as victims (i.e. not perpetrators) were killed in road accidents
during this 2-year period. The study examined acceptance of risk both on the part of the victims
independently, and also in the context of risk acceptance on the part of the perpetrator. This was
done in order to answer questions such as how many people have lost their lives in road traffic
accidents where they were entirely blameless/accepted no form of risk whatsoever. The study
demonstrated that 126 people lost their lives during this 2-year period without having accepted
any form of risk. Among these, 45 were killed by a blameworthy perpetrator. Non-blameworthy
perpetrators were responsible for 81 fatalities.
The study identifies both the factors associated with risky driver behaviour, and the driver
categories that exhibit risky behaviour. It is important that both NMPS and the local
constabularies use this knowledge as a basis for their preventive traffic safety activities. The
police must focus their resources on individuals in the highest potential risk categories. In
particular, it is the young, male, and inexperienced drivers who ignore regulations and restrictions
and expose themselves to other risks and danger. Many of the young people who display risky
behaviour may in other settings behave entirely within legal constraints. However, among the
sample of young people we also find those who both contravene traffic regulations and commit
other criminal offences. The last-named group represents a particular challenge to the police’s
enforcement responsibilities.
It is important that the police both recognise the connection, and eliminate the distinction,
between ordinary police service activities and road traffic safety work. These are two sides of the
same coin.
Part II – A literature study of drivers who exhibit risky behaviour
The aim of the literature study was to find answers to the following questions:
What are the characteristics of drivers who are particularly risk-prone in road traffic situations?
What significance do biological factors and brain maturity have for risky behaviour?
What sociological characteristics do these drivers have in common?
To what extent are drivers who exhibit risky behaviour involved in criminal activity in settings
other than road traffic situations?
When and where are these drivers out on the road?
Research has been undertaken into several different personality traits related to risky behaviour.
However, it seems quite clear that individuals who score high on one or several of the following
traits more often display a dangerous driving style and are more frequently involved in road
accidents than others:
Sensation seeking – a great need for excitement and new challenges
Aggression
Irresponsibility/normlessness
Lack of empathy/compassion
Several studies have demonstrated that different personality traits and needs can favour risky
behaviour among drivers. For some individuals, such behaviour is closely related to alcohol or
drugs, while for others speeding and excitement are key factors. These drivers all share a tendency
to underestimate risk and to overestimate their own driving skills.
A pronounced characteristic of drivers who exhibit risky behaviour is that they are frequently
relatively young. Reckless driving among young drivers has traditionally been attributed to lack of
driving experience. However, more recent research shows that the human brain is not fully
5
developed before late adolescence (at the age of about 25). This is much later than was previously
assumed. An individual’s cognitive capacity and behaviour control are under development, but
remain immature and deficient in young people. Because of this, young people end up in risky
situations more often than adults. Some scientists point out that young people exhibit a greater
inclination towards thrill-seeking, and that they experience greater pleasure in taking risks and
coping in dangerous situations.
In terms of risky behaviour, there is an important distinction to be made between men and women.
Men exhibit a much greater tendency to engage in such behaviour, although there are also some
women who do so.
It transpires that drivers who exhibit the most risky behaviour also had behavioural problems
earlier in life. These may have included antisocial or aggressive behaviour, and difficulties in
adjusting to school life. Several international studies demonstrate that such individuals often tend
to perform badly at school and that they have little education.
These drivers also often display problematic behaviour in settings other than road traffic
situations, such as criminal activity and drug addiction. Several studies have found that criminals
convicted of violent crime or crimes involving personal gain often also have convictions for
traffic-related offences and vice versa. A Norwegian study has demonstrated that drivers who
attempt to flee from the police (often under the influence of alcohol or drugs) are capable of
exhibiting high levels of risky driver behaviour, partly for the excitement and partly as a means of
escape.
Part III Conclusions and action
This study demonstrates that a high proportion of young people lose their lives in road accidents,
compared to their proportion of the population as a whole, and in relation to the amount of
motoring they do. In other words, this group is particularly vulnerable in traffic situations and
demands extra attention from the police and road traffic safety organisations working with the
police. The study also demonstrates that individuals registered in the police criminal records
database, are more frequently involved in fatal road traffic accidents than the population in
general. Measures must thus be targeted at the aforementioned groups.
NMPS are proposing several measures. Some of these are under implementation, while others are
new:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
More intelligence-driven road policing
The control and surveillance of risk-seeking young people and individuals who exhibit
criminal behaviour
Implementation of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system and mobile
evidence gathering systems to apprehend individuals whose driving is impaired due to the
influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
More exhaustive examination of general character and current and past drink-related
behaviour prior to issue of a driving licence
Stricter thresholds for offences committed during a driver’s probationary period both with
respect to penalty points and suspension/withdrawal of driving licence
An education programme focusing on risk awareness and tailored to drivers who have lost
their licence during the probationary period
Introduction of a zero-tolerance principle for drugs other than alcohol and the use of saliva
tests as part of random drugs testing
The special marking of vehicles in the charge of novice drivers
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................. 2
SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................... 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. 6
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 10
Background ............................................................................................................................ 10
The aim of the study............................................................................................................... 10
PART I: REVIEW OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS (2004-2005) .................................... 11
The main issues ...................................................................................................................... 11
Method and sample ................................................................................................................ 11
Definitions .............................................................................................................................. 12
Results of the analysis ............................................................................................................ 14
1.1 General remarks regarding the accidents...................................................................... 14
1.2 Causes ........................................................................................................................... 15
1.3 Non-blameworthy behaviour: ....................................................................................... 16
1.3.1 Inattentiveness................................................................................................... 16
1.3.2 Suspicion of feeling indisposed, falling asleep or suicide ................................ 16
1.3.3 Chance accidents, road conditions or blame on the part of the victim ............. 17
1.3.4 Driving skills..................................................................................................... 17
1.3.5 Vehicle/load ...................................................................................................... 17
1.3.6 Unknown ........................................................................................................... 17
1.4 Blameworthy behaviour................................................................................................ 17
1.4.1 Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol ........................................ 18
1.4.2 Speeding............................................................................................................ 20
1.4.3 Aggressive driver behaviour ............................................................................. 21
1.5 Profile of a perpetrator .................................................................................................. 21
1.5.1 Age and gender ................................................................................................. 21
1.5.2 Place of residence.............................................................................................. 23
1.5.3 Previous convictions ......................................................................................... 24
1.6 Further remarks regarding the accidents (time of day, nature of the accident, extent
of injury, type of vehicle).............................................................................................. 29
1.6.1 Day of the week, time of day/year .................................................................... 29
1.6.2 Class of road and speed limits........................................................................... 30
1.6.3 Nature of the accident ....................................................................................... 32
1.6.4 Extent of injury ................................................................................................. 32
1.6.5 Type of vehicle.................................................................................................. 33
1.6.6 Age of private cars ............................................................................................ 34
1.7 Road traffic victims....................................................................................................... 35
1.7.1 The relationship between risk and the victim ................................................... 35
1.7.2 Links between the victims and the perpetrator ................................................. 38
1.7.3 Age and gender of the victims .......................................................................... 39
1.7.4 Victims - type of vehicle and road user category.............................................. 40
1.8 Protective equipment .................................................................................................... 41
1.8.1 Seat belt use – private cars ................................................................................ 41
1.9 Outcomes of the criminal prosecutions......................................................................... 41
1.9.1 Sentencing and decisions not to prosecute........................................................ 42
1.9.2 Driver disqualification ...................................................................................... 44
7
PART II: LITERATURE STUDY OF RISK-PRONE DRIVERS ......................................... 45
Aim 45
Method.................................................................................................................................... 45
2
STATUS OF RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF RISKY DRIVER BEHAVIOUR........ 46
2.1 Recognised personality traits among risk-prone drivers............................................... 46
2.1.1 Sensation seeking .............................................................................................. 46
2.1.2 Road rage (“driving anger”).............................................................................. 50
2.1.3 The importance of personality – “The Big Five”.............................................. 51
2.1.4 Other personality traits...................................................................................... 54
2.1.5 Personality types in preference to personality traits ......................................... 54
2.1.6 Relationship between ADHD and driving behaviour ....................................... 55
2.2 Brain maturity and risky behaviour .............................................................................. 55
2.3 Socio-demographic characteristics of risk-prone drivers ............................................. 60
2.4 Risk-prone drivers and criminal behaviour in other settings ........................................ 62
2.5 When most risky driver behaviour takes place ............................................................. 64
2.6 Why drive the car? ........................................................................................................ 65
2.7 The internet, YouTube and risky behaviour ................................................................. 65
PART III: CONCLUSIONS AND ACTION ............................................................................ 67
3
CONCLUSION – “YOUNG DRIVERS’ SYNDROME” ................................................. 67
4
Action..................................................................................................................................... 68
4.1 Intelligence-driven police work on the roads................................................................ 68
4.2 Police surveillance and control measures ..................................................................... 69
4.2.1 Control and surveillance of risk-seeking young people and individuals
exhibiting criminal behaviour. .......................................................................... 69
4.2.2 Use of technology - ANPR .............................................................................. 69
4.2.3 Intensify controls of drugs and/or alcohol use .................................................. 69
4.3 Character assessment and sobriety................................................................................ 70
4.4 Probationary driving entitlement .................................................................................. 70
4.4.1 Driver disqualification in the event of road traffic contraventions ................... 70
4.4.2 Measures following driver disqualification ...................................................... 70
4.4.3 Penalty point system ......................................................................................... 71
4.4.4 Control measures during the probationary licence period (use of P/L plates).. 71
4.5 Other rule changes ........................................................................................................ 72
Zero-tolerance principle for substances other than alcohol, and rapid (saliva) tests
for narcotic drugs .............................................................................................. 72
4.6 Working with the media................................................................................................ 72
LITTERATUR............................................................................................................................. 72
ANNEX 1: TABLES.................................................................................................................... 78
Figures
Figure 1: Road traffic fatalities 2004-2005, grouped according to road user category (N=476)....11
Figure 2: Types of accident (N=425) ..............................................................................................14
Figure 3 Principal causal factor according to whether behaviour was blameworthy or nonblameworthy (n=425) ..............................................................................................................15
Figure 4: Subdivisions of non-blameworthy behaviour ..................................................................16
Figure 5: Subdivisions of blameworthy behaviour (n=219) ...........................................................17
Figure 6: Incidence of drugs and/or alcohol found in the perpetrators (N=425).............................19
Figure 7 Speeding as the principal cause (n=425) ..........................................................................20
8
Figure 8: The proportion of blameworthy and non-blameworthy perpetrators within each age
group (N=425) ........................................................................................................................22
Figure 9:Sub-groups of blameworthy behaviour and the age of the perpetrator (n=219).............23
Figure 10 Proportion of perpetrators with previous convictions.....................................................24
Figure 11: Proportions of perpetrators exhibiting non-blameworthy (n=206) and blameworthy
(n=219) behaviour, respectively, who have previous convictions. Data are sorted according
to the nature of the criminal offence........................................................................................25
Figure 12: Proportion of blameworthy perpetrators with previous convictions sorted into
subgroups defined by the nature of the blameworthy behaviour as a cause of fatal accidents.
The hatched columns show the proportions of previously convicted perpetrators who have
exhibited blameworthy and non-blameworthy behaviour, respectively. The blocked colour
columns display the proportion of previously convicted perpetrators sorted according to the
nature of their blameworthy behaviour (driving impaired by drugs/alcohol, speeding,
aggressive driver behaviour)...................................................................................................26
Figure 13: The proportions of previously convicted perpetrators impaired by drugs and/or
alcohol, sorted according to various categories of criminal offence (n=93). The hatched
columns show the total proportions of previously convicted perpetrators impaired by drugs
and/or alcohol. The blocked colour columns display the proportion of perpetrators impaired
by drugs and/or alcohol with previous convictions for road traffic-related offences, narcotics
and crimes committed for personal gain, etc. .........................................................................27
Figure 14: The proportions of previously convicted perpetrators involved in accidents attributed to
speeding, sorted according to various categories of criminal offence (n=153). The hatched
columns show the total proportions of previously convicted perpetrators involved in
accidents attributed to speeding. The blocked coloured columns display the proportion of
perpetrators involved in accidents attributed to speeding with previous convictions for
traffic-related offences, narcotics and crimes committed for personal gain, etc.....................28
Figure 15: Incidence of accidents (day of the week and time of day) for the causal groups
blameworthy/non-blameworthy behaviour (N=425)...............................................................29
Figure 16: Percentage of fatal accidents (2004-2005) plotted against season of the year for the
categories blameworthy/non-blameworthy behaviour (N=425) .............................................30
Figure 17 Class of road....................................................................................................................30
Figure 18 Speed limits.....................................................................................................................31
Figure 19: Incidence of various types of accident for the causal groups blameworthy/nonblameworthy behaviour (N=425) ............................................................................................32
Figure 20: Extent of injury grouped according to the principal cause of accident (n=425)............32
Figure 21: The relationship between type of vehicle and the causal groups blameworthy/nonblameworthy behaviour (N=425), plotted together with each vehicle type as a proportion of
the total number of vehicles on the road. ................................................................................33
Figure 22: The relationship between type of vehicle, age of perpetrator, and the causal groups
blameworthy/non-blameworthy behaviour (N=425)...............................................................34
Figure 23: Relationships between age of car (all perpetrators), age of car driven by perpetrators
exhibiting blameworthy behaviour, and the total number of vehicles on the road in the period
2004-2005................................................................................................................................35
Figure 24: Accident victims grouped according to road user and risk-taker categories (n=226) ...36
Figure 25 Fatalities grouped according to victim/perpetrator status and further according to
behaviour in terms of acceptance of risk and blameworthiness (n=476) ................................38
Figure 26: Proportions of accident victims in relation to age and gender (N=226) ........................39
Figure 27: Accident victims grouped according to road user category and type of vehicle (n=226)
.................................................................................................................................................40
Figure 28: Seat belt use among perpetrators and victims travelling in private cars (drivers and
passengers) (n=292) ................................................................................................................41
Figure 29 Outcome of criminal prosecutions, surviving perpetrators (n=175) ...............................42
9
Figure 30: Judgements grouped according to length of custodial sentence (n=95) ........................43
Figure 31: Driver disqualification (n=103) .....................................................................................44
Figure 32: Progressive maturation of the cerebral cortex, indicated by the blue colour.................56
Figure 33: Schematic diagram of the limbic centre of the brain (Casey, 2006)..............................58
Figure 34: Graphical representation of developmental trends for different regions of the brain
(Casey, 2006)...........................................................................................................................58
Figure 35: The proportions of road traffic offenders with previous criminal convictions, grouped
according to age (Rose, 2000) .................................................................................................63
Tables
Table 1: Total no. of fatal traffic accidents and deaths in 2004 and 2005 ......................................14
Table 2: Incidence of various forms of drugs found in the perpetrators .........................................19
Table 3: Age distribution (%) among non-blameworthy and blameworthy perpetrators. ..............22
Table 4: Grouping of victims according to their risk behaviour profiles and the blameworthy/nonblameworthy behaviour of the perpetrator, respectively.........................................................37
Table 5: Young people’s willingness to accept risk as it relates to the purpose of driving (Moe,
2003)........................................................................................................................................65
Table 6: Risk willingness among young people as it relates to how frequently they drive (Moe,
2003)........................................................................................................................................65
Table 7: ”Young drivers’ syndrome”. Characteristics of drivers and their significance in terms of
risky driver behaviour. ............................................................................................................68
10
INTRODUCTION
Background
Each year road traffic accidents represent an enormous cost to society, both in social and
economic terms. In recent years there have been about 250 fatalities per year, and estimates
indicate that all road traffic accidents cost society about NOK 25 billion annually. Road traffic
safety is an important component of the work carried out by the Norwegian Police, and it
constitutes the principal task of NMPS.
As part of its National Transport Plan for the period 2006-2015, the Norwegian government has
declared a vision, the so-called “zero vision”, under which the total number of fatalities and
severe injuries incurred on the roads will be reduced to zero. The police, in combination with
other agencies, will work towards reducing the total number of road traffic accidents resulting in
fatalities or severe injury. In order to achieve this aim, the principal police strategy consists of a
focused effort combined with control activities targeted at drivers and based on an analysis of
current accident incidence.
Analyses of fatal accidents indicate that speeding, driver impairment due to the influence of drugs
and/or alcohol, and the failure to wear seat belts are frequently cited as the causes of the most
serious accidents, and that young people represent a particularly vulnerable group. In order further
to reduce the number of road traffic fatalities and cases of serious injury, it is essential to identify
the most vulnerable groups.
The aim of the study
For this reason NMPS wished to seek better insight into the causes of this type of serious road
traffic accident, profiles of the perpetrators, the sanctions imposed, and other aspects such as the
scope of speeding- and drug/alcohol-related offences, together with other factors. NMPS thus
initiated an analysis of criminal prosecutions involving fatal accidents during the period 2004 2005. This resulted in a total of 425 cases involving 476 fatalities. A two-year period was chosen
in order to provide a sufficient number of cases, and the period 2004-2005 because the
prosecutions in question ought to have been resolved. An important component of this work has
been the identification of the types of behaviour which the police can and must confront, to find
the relationship between risky driver behaviour and other forms of criminal activity, and to
identify who these drivers are in terms of their shared psychological and social traits.
11
PART I: REVIEW OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS (2004-2005)
The main issues
What were the causes of the accidents in question?
To what extent was the behaviour of the perpetrator blameworthy?
How many of the perpetrators had previous criminal convictions?
To what extent have the victims either accepted or taken a risk?
How many people die in road traffic accidents and are entirely blameless?
Method and sample
The study is based on all of the 425 fatal accidents recorded in the STRASAK database (the
central criminal prosecution case database) for the years 2004 and 2005, collated with the records
of the STRAKS database held by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (Statens vegvesen).
The project has been carried out by personnel with experience from the police and public
prosecuting authorities, and by others with a background in analysis and statistics. The review has
consisted of a categorisation of key information related to the individuals involved in a given
accident, and of the circumstances surrounding the accident in question. Information has also been
obtained from police records. In those cases resulting in a conviction, information set out in the
written judgement has formed the basis for the categorisation. In the first instance, the same
applies in cases of issued penalty notices and prosecution withdrawals. The same evaluation
criteria and judicial methods are employed as the basis for assessments of cases in which charges
were withdrawn.
The sample for this study comprises 425 accidents involving a total of 476 persons, 250 of whom
are defined as perpetrators and 226 as victims. Overall, this sample is representative of fatal
accident data both before and subsequent to the years which we have studied.
Road traffic fatalities grouped according to road user
category (N=476)
Victim pedestrian
11 %
Perpetrator driver
52 %
Victim passenger
24 %
Victim - driver
13 %
Figure 1: Road traffic fatalities 2004-2005, grouped according to road user category (N=476)
12
Figure 1 shows the proportions of individual traffic fatalities (both perpetrators and victims),
grouped according to road user category.
Definitions
In this study, in relation to standard of proof, we do not adhere strictly to criminal law criteria.
Since criminal law terminology is not extensively employed, we will in the following outline
some of the key terms used in this study.
Perpetrator:
The term “perpetrator” is used to describe the person who is closest to assuming responsibility for
the accident in question, regardless of his/her guilt in criminal terms. Only a single perpetrator is
defined for each accident. In all cases, the perpetrator is the driver of a vehicle, i.e., no pedestrians
are defined as perpetrators.
In this study, the 425 perpetrators are subdivided into two groups based on their behaviour:
“blameworthy behaviour” and “non-blameworthy behaviour”. The aim of this subdivision has
been to identify perpetrators who have exhibited a proactive form of blameworthy behaviour and
to compare these with perpetrators whose blameworthy behaviour has been more passive. It is the
group of drivers exhibiting “blameworthy behaviour” which the police must target first and
foremost in order to reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on Norwegian
roads.
Blameworthy behaviour:
Blameworthy behaviour describes a behavioural norm, which deviates from that which is
normally regarded as within the limits of proper and safe behaviour. The term has no standing in
law, but describes a marked and demonstrable deviation from normal or proper behaviour in road
traffic situations. Behaviour of this kind creates hazardous situations, which endanger the life and
well-being of both the perpetrator and others, i.e. situations involving increased risk of accident
where the perpetrator is entirely blameworthy for his/her actions. In the main, blameworthy
behaviour has its legal equivalent in intentional or wilfully negligent actions. Wilful negligence in
criminal terms exists when an individual, despite being aware of the hazards caused by his/her
behaviour, nevertheless opts to take a risk (“the reckless ones”). Individuals classified within the
group “blameworthy behaviour” include those who have driven too fast, under the influence of
drugs and/or alcohol, and/or have exhibited aggressive behaviour on the roads.
Non-blameworthy behaviour:
The causal behavioural categories ,which do not come under that of “blameworthy behaviour”,
are grouped under the generic term “non-blameworthy behaviour”. The following causal
behavioural categories are included here: “inattentiveness”, “driving skills”, “suspicion of feeling
indisposed/falling asleep/conjecture regarding suicide”, “defect in vehicle/load”, “chance
accident/road conditions/blame on the part of the victim” and “unknown”. In many cases,
behaviour defined here as “non-blameworthy” could be described as reproachable or illegal, but is
nevertheless of a careless or passive nature.
Victim:
A road traffic victim, termed in this study as simply “victim”, is defined as a person who has died
in the accident in question, and who is not the perpetrator. Individuals who have suffered injuries,
but who are not a perpetrator, are not included in this study. The definition includes those victims
who are entirely blameless, and who have neither accepted nor taken any risks. The definition also
includes individuals who have themselves exhibited or accepted incidences of risky behaviour.
13
An example of this is a person who has chosen to be a passenger in a car despite being aware that
the driver was under the influence of alcohol.
14
Results of the analysis
1.1 General remarks regarding the accidents
Table 1: Total no. of fatal traffic accidents and deaths in 2004 and 2005
Total no. of fatal accidents
Total no. of deaths
2004
2005
225
254
200
222
There were particularly low numbers of fatal accidents on Norwegian roads during the two-year
period 2004-2005. In 2004, 254 persons were killed in 225 fatal accidents, while in 2005 the
figures were 222 killed in 200 accidents (see table 1).
The accidents were fairly evenly distributed throughout the year, but were somewhat more
common during the summer months. In terms of days of the week, a greater proportion of
accidents occurred at weekends than on weekdays, but in general terms the distribution was
relatively even. The distribution of accident occurrence mirrors the periods during the day when
traffic is heaviest. Afternoons in particular represent a period when the majority of accidents
occur.
Type of accident (N=425)
Crossing
travel direction
10 %
Same travel
direction
4%
Other types
of accident
2%
Opposing
travel direction
39 %
Pedestrians
12 %
Driving off
the road
33 %
Figure 2: Types of accident (N=425)
The most common forms of accident involve vehicles driving off the road and collisions (see
figure 2), and represent the cause of as many as 72 % of all fatal accidents.
75 % of fatal accidents occurred on European highway or national (A) class roads, and 62 % on
roads where the speed limit was 70 km/h or greater.
15
For more details regarding these statistics, we refer to the tables in annex 1.
1.2 Causes
Factors related to the road user, vehicle and road conditions may contribute to the cause of any
given accident, or to the fact that the accident in question results in a fatality. This study has
focused on the actions of the road users. Our attention is directed towards the actions or behaviour
that have been decisive in causing the accident in question. In other words, a principal causal
factor is defined for each accident, and special emphasis is placed on the behaviour of the
perpetrator.
Principal causal factor (n=425)
Non-blameworthy
behaviour
48 %
Blameworthy
behaviour
52 %
Figure 3 Principal causal factor according to whether behaviour was blameworthy or nonblameworthy (n=425)
Figure 3 demonstrates that in 52 % (219) of the accidents studied, the perpetrator has exhibited
blameworthy behaviour, and in 48 % (206) of the accidents, he/she has exhibited nonblameworthy behaviour (we refer to the definitions on page 12).
16
1.3 Non-blameworthy behaviour:
Subdivisions of non-blameworthy behaviour (N=206)
Chance accident/
road conditions/
fault of the victim
8%
Unknown
3%
Defect in
vehicle/load
2%
Inattentiveness
51 %
Suspicion of feeling
indisposed/falling
asleep/speculation
as to suicide
attempt
32 %
Driver skills
4%
Figure 4: Subdivisions of non-blameworthy behaviour
Figure 4 shows the various sub-groups defined under the “non-blameworthy behaviour” category.
“Inattentiveness” and “suspicion of feeling indisposed/falling asleep/suicide” combine to
represent those groups involved in most accidents.
1.3.1 Inattentiveness
Inattentiveness on the part of the perpetrator is the principal cause of accidents in 106 cases. This
represents 25 % of all accidents and 51 % of those caused by “non-blameworthy” behaviour. This
is mainly behaviour which in criminal law is defined as unconscious negligence. Unconscious
negligence exists when the person in question has not consciously been aware of the hazards
involved in a given situation (“the thoughtless”).“Inattentiveness” may also involve criminal acts,
but is in general characterised more by passivity than by wilful action.
1.3.2 Suspicion of feeling indisposed, falling asleep or suicide
In 66 accidents, i.e. 16 % of all accidents and 32 % of those caused by “non-blameworthy
behaviour”, the case documents indicate that the cause of the accident involves a suspicion that
the perpetrator has either felt indisposed, has fallen asleep or has intended to commit suicide.
Typical situations in such cases are that the vehicle has driven onto the opposing carriageway, or
has left the carriageway entirely either on a straight stretch of road or while negotiating a slight
bend. A suspicion of suicide may be justified in cases where the person in question has expressed
suicidal thoughts to others prior to the accident, or if the vehicle has been driven directly at
oncoming heavy vehicles. Based on the information available, about 20 accidents are regarded as
having been due to the perpetrator feeling indisposed, about 25 the result of him/her having fallen
asleep, and about 20 the result of suicide attempts. It is emphasised that in these cases the cause
centres merely on a suspicion.
17
1.3.3 Chance accidents, road conditions or blame on the part of the victim
In 14 of the accidents, the perpetrator could not have foreseen the causal circumstances. Examples
include sudden gusts of wind, localised patches of slippery road, collisions with animals or rock
impacts. In addition, some of the accidents involving pedestrians cannot be blamed on the
perpetrator.
1.3.4 Driving skills
In eight of the accidents, the cause was attributed to inadequate driving skills. Four of the
accidents involved heavy motorcycles. There is one case of incorrect loading of a heavy goods
vehicle due to inadequate knowledge on the part of the perpetrator, one case of slippery road
conditions, one case of driver training, and one case in which the driver lost control of a specially
adapted vehicle. It is worth pointing out that these accidents were not particularly linked to
younger drivers. The ages of the drivers in these cases were evenly distributed (23 – 77).
1.3.5 Vehicle/load
In four accidents, the principal cause is attributed to a defect linked either to the vehicle or its
load. These cases include incorrect or overloading of heavy goods vehicles, defective brakes,
incorrectly mounted tow-bars which later worked loose, and loose wheel nuts.
1.3.6 Unknown
In the case of one accident, the cause has not been ascertained.
1.4 Blameworthy behaviour
Subdivisions of blameworthy behaviour (n=219)
Speeding+
aggressive
behaviour
7%
Aggressive
behaviour
9%
Drugs and/ or
alcohol
22 %
Speed too high
for road
conditions
21 %
Speeding+
drugs/alcohol
21 %
High speed
6%
Very high
speed
14 %
Figure 5: Subdivisions of blameworthy behaviour (n=219)
18
Figure 5 shows how the various sub-groups of blameworthy behaviour are distributed in terms of
their role as the cause of accidents. Blameworthy behaviour includes driving under the influence
of drugs and/or alcohol, speeding, and aggressive driver behaviour. Several of these factors may
play a role, and in some cases it has been difficult to determine which factor has been the most
decisive in terms of the outcome of the accident. For this reason we have also devised some
generic groupings, such as “speeding + drugs/alcohol”, to account for cases in which both the
levels of speeding and drugs/alcohol have been so high that it has been difficult to decide which
has been the most decisive factor.
In certain accidents, secondary causes or factors in addition to the principal cause may have
influenced the circumstances of an accident or contributed to its occurrence. Such secondary
factors are referred to as contributory causes.
1.4.1 Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol
Drugs and/or alcohol, either solely or in combination with speeding, represent the principal cause
of 93 (43 %) of the accidents attributed to blameworthy behaviour. In a further 11 accidents,
driver impairment due to drugs and/or alcohol was a contributory factor. We can therefore say that
a total of 104 accidents were caused to some degree by driver impairment due to drugs and/or
alcohol. This constitutes 47 % of the 219 fatal accidents attributed to blameworthy behaviour, and
24 % of all of the 425 fatal accidents recorded during this two-year period1.
The use of the terminology “drugs/alcohol” includes alcohol, narcotic and medicinal drugs.
Medicinal drugs may have been taken either on doctor’s advice or as a stimulant, i.e. the term
covers both legal and illegal use. The discovery of drugs and or alcohol does not necessarily
entail that the driver was under the influence in the sense of being criminally liable. For some of
the accidents, no tests were carried out. This applies especially in cases where the perpetrator
died. The incidence of drugs and/or alcohol is thus probably higher than is stated in the records. In
a number of accidents analyses have only been carried out for the presence of alcohol.
Based on this knowledge, the incidence of drugs other than alcohol can thus also be expected to
be higher than is stated in the records.
1
There were 7 accidents in which the presence of drugs and/or alcohol was proven but where
these were not thought to be the cause of the accident, or where there was some uncertainty as to
the extent of impairment due to drugs and/or alcohol. In other words, alcohol or other substances
were proven to be present in 111 perpetrators (26 %).
19
Incidence of drugs and/or alcohol found in the
perpetrators (N=425)
Alcohol alone
14 %
Drug other
than alcohol
alone
9%
Alcohol +
another form
of drug
3%
Not proven/
unknown
74 %
Figure 6: Incidence of drugs and/or alcohol found in the perpetrators (N=425)
Figure 6 shows the incidence of drugs and/or alcohol proven in the perpetrators for all 425 fatal
accidents (regardless of degree of influence on the perpetrator). Figure 6 demonstrates that drugs
and/or alcohol were proven in 26 % of the perpetrators, i.e., in 111 individuals.
Table 2 shows the various types of drug proven in the perpetrators. In many cases, several drugs
were found.
Table 2: Incidence of various forms of drugs found in the perpetrators
Alcohol
Benzodiazepines*
Amfetamines
THC (cannabis)
Codeine**
Morphine
Other***
No.
Proportion of N=425
72
29
17
14
7
4
21
16,9 %
6,8 %
4,0 %
3,3 %
1,6 %
0,9 %
4,9 %
* Valium, Vival, Rohypnol, Sobril, etc.
** Paralgin forte, etc.
*** Soporifics, pain killers, anti-depressants, Methadone/Subutex, cocaine, etc.
Alcohol is the dominant drug, and is proven to be present in connection with 17 % of the
accidents, either alone or in combination with other drugs. The presence of drugs other than
alcohol was proven in a total of 12 % of the accidents, either alone or together with alcohol.
Benzodiazepines, which form the active ingredient in products such as Valium, Vival, Rohypnol
and Sobril, represent the largest group of narcotic drugs, and are proven in connection with 6.8 %
of the accidents. Amfetamines and THC (cannabis) also constitute major groups.
20
1.4.2
Speeding
Speeding as the principal cause (n=425)
Speed too high for
road conditions
11 %
High speed
3%
Very high speed
7%
Speeding +
aggressive behaviour
4%
No excessive speed
64 %
Speeding + drugs
and/or alcohol
11 %
Figure 7 Speeding as the principal cause (n=425)
Speeding, either alone or in combination with alcohol/drugs and/or aggressive driver behaviour
constitutes the main cause in 153 accidents, i.e. 48 % of accidents attributed to blameworthy
behaviour, and 36 % of all the 425 fatal accidents. In a further 11 accidents, speeding was a
contributory factor. We can say therefore that a total of 164 accidents were caused to a greater or
lesser extent by speeding.
Speeding as a causal factor is subdivided into 3 groups in terms of its degree of seriousness. We
have taken little account of the speed limit at the scene of the accident, but have instead opted to
make judgement of what was an appropriate speed. This is due to the fact that consideration of the
speed limit alone is in many cases too restrictive a criterion, especially in cases where driving
conditions and the curvature of the road also play a role. Moreover, information regarding speed
is often uncertain in individual cases. This means that to a much greater extent our groupings
represent a specific subdivision which we believe provides a true picture of the factors involved.
In general terms, we can say that the group “speed too high for road conditions” is representative
of accidents where the car involved has either adhered to, or has travelled at speeds a little in
excess of, the speed limit in force at the scene of the accident, whereas the group “high speed”,
has involved vehicles travelling well over the speed limit. The group “very high speed” represents
vehicles travelling at speeds that would under normal circumstances result in the confiscation of
the driver’s licence.
In addition to the groups for which speeding is the sole factor, we have defined two further
generic groups; “Speed+aggressive behaviour” and Speed+drugs/alcohol”. These groups
constitute the cause of 16 and 46 accidents, respectively.
The group “Very high speed” represents the cause of 30 accidents.
The “High speed” group represents an intermediate subdivision characterised by “stressed
driving” behaviour (driver in a hurry), i.e., those individuals who have exceeded the speed limit
without coming under the category “Very high speed". 14 of the accidents have been attributed to
this cause.
21
Accidents caused due to speeding, and in particular those that we have classified in the group
“speed too high for road conditions”, will naturally enough involve elements related to the
driver’s skills’ levels. In 4 of the accidents, we have incorporated this as a contributory cause. For
example, the group “Speed to high for road conditions” will include accidents that occurred on
slippery roads, gravel roads and examples where the driver failed to judge the curvature of a bend.
The analysis shows that in 11 % of the fatal accidents the drivers had kept within the stipulated
speed limits, but had failed to adjust their speed to the curvature of the road or the general road
conditions. 55 individuals died in 47 accidents. It is food for thought that so many people die each
year as a result of a failure on the part of the driver to adjust his/her speed. This underlines the
importance of adjusting one’s speed to the prevailing road conditions.
1.4.3 Aggressive driver behaviour
In the main, the accidents, which are classified as being attributed to aggressive driver behaviour,
are caused by poorly-judged overtaking manoeuvres or other forms of irresponsible driving
without the involvement of excessive speeding. These represent 9 % of the 219 fatal accidents
attributed to blameworthy behaviour.
The number of drivers exhibiting “aggressive driver behaviour” may be under-reported because it
has proved difficult to find sufficient sources in the criminal prosecution records to support such a
description.
The groups termed “aggressive behaviour” and ”inattentiveness” are distinct in that the firstnamed is characterised by the incidence of persistently proactive/conscious patterns of behaviour,
whereas the second is characterised by situations in which the driver was inattentive/took the
wrong option in terms of his/her focus of attention.
The sub-group “aggressive behaviour + speed” involves accidents where the driver has taken a
conscious risk while at the same time driving at high speed. The most important causes here are
drag racing and reckless overtaking manoeuvres combined with excessive speed, and they
constitute 7 % of accidents attributed to blameworthy behaviour.
Thus, in more than half of the fatal accidents (219 of the 425) the principal cause was that the
perpetrator had exhibited blameworthy behaviour. In the remainder of this report we will direct
the reader's attention mostly towards exploring the differences between the perpetrators who
exhibit blameworthy and non-blameworthy behaviour, respectively.
1.5 Profile of a perpetrator
1.5.1 Age and gender
This study has revealed a correlation between age and gender and the degree of blameworthiness.
The more blameworthy the behaviour, the higher the proportion of male and young perpetrators.
Men represent 90 % of those perpetrators who have exhibited blameworthy behaviour, and 84 %
of those who have not exhibited blameworthy behaviour. Within the causal categories “speed too
high for road conditions” and “high speed”, the proportion of men is about 80 %, while in the
categories “very high speed”, “alcohol/drugs + speed”, and “conscious negligence + speed” and
“conscious negligence”, the proportion of men is over 95 %.
22
Table 3: Age distribution (%) among non-blameworthy and blameworthy perpetrators.
Age
under
20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and
over
Total
4.9
18.4
15.0
18.9
18.4
9.2
15.0
100
24.2
30.1
19.6
11.9
8.2
3.2
2.7
100
Nonblameworthy
N=206
Blameworthy
N=219
Proportion of blameworthy/non-blameworthy perpetrators within each age group
Non-blameworthy
Blameworthy
100 %
90 %
80 %
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0%
under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and over
Figure 8: The proportion of blameworthy and non-blameworthy perpetrators within each age
group (N=425)
The average ages of perpetrators who have exhibited blameworthy and non-blameworthy
behaviour are 32 and 47, respectively. 24 % of blameworthy perpetrators are younger than 20,
whereas 5 % of this group are non-blameworthy (see table 3). In other words, persons younger
than 30 are notably over-represented among blameworthy perpetrators. This is also true to some
extent for the 30-39 age group. Figure 8 demonstrates this even more clearly. Here we see a
pronounced decrease in the proportion of blameworthy drivers with increasing age. The opposite
trend is true for non-blameworthy drivers.
23
Sub-groups of blameworthy behaviour and the age of the perpetrator (n=219)
under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and over
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Drugs/alcohol
Drugs/alcohol
+speeding
Speed too high
for conditions
High speed
Very high speed
Speeding+
aggressive
behaviour
Aggressive
behaviour
Figure 9:Sub-groups of blameworthy behaviour and the age of the perpetrator (n=219)
Figure 9 shows the age distribution of perpetrators for the different blameworthy behaviour subgroups. Young people are particularly over-represented in categories associated with accidents
attributed to high speed. In the category termed “very high speed”, 22 of the 30 perpetrators
(73%) are less than 30 years of age. In the category “speeding + aggressive behaviour”, 13 of the
16 perpetrators (81 %) are less than 30 years of age. In total, as many as 61 % of the perpetrators
involved in accidents where speeding was the principal cause (either alone or in combination with
drugs and/or alcohol, or conscious negligence), are less than 30 years of age. In terms of accidents
involving drugs and/or alcohol are concerned, i.e., where drugs and/or alcohol represent the
principal cause (either alone or in combination with speeding), the proportion of young people is
much smaller. 52 % are less than 30 years of age. These findings are in good agreement with
SINTEF’s literature study (see part 2 of this report).
1.5.2 Place of residence
47 % of accidents in which the principal cause was attributed to blameworthy behaviour occurred
within the perpetrator’s municipality of residence. Of accidents where blameworthy behaviour
was not the principal cause, 38 % occurred in the perpetrator’s municipality of residence. In other
words, the perpetrator’s local environs represent the most vulnerable locations in terms of
exposure to his/her driving impaired by alcohol and/or drugs and aggressive driver behaviour
(inclusive of speeding).
24
1.5.3
Previous convictions
Proportion of perpetrators with previous convictions
non-blameworthy
blameworthy
60 %
51 %
50 %
38 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
18 %
12 %
10 %
0%
Previously convicted
Previously convicted, for non-traffic offences*
Figure 10 Proportion of perpetrators with previous convictions
*Persons with only traffic-offences excluded.
Among all the perpetrators involved in the 425 fatal accidents reviewed in this study, 35 % had
previous convictions. Among the perpetrators who have exhibited blameworthy behaviour, as
many as 51 % had previous convictions. Among the perpetrators who exhibited non-blameworthy
behaviour, 18 % had previous convictions.
A study carried out for Statistics Norway by Skarðhamar (2005) among the 1977 birth cohort
showed that 21 % of all those born in that year had been charged for at least one violation during a
ten-year period and that of these, about half for more than one criminal offence. The proportion of
those with previous convictions will be somewhat lower than the proportion charged, due to the
subsequent dropping of charges and acquittals.
As a comparison with the Statistics Norway study, our data indicate that the perpetrators involved
in fatal accidents constitute a segment of the community which has experienced contact with the
police more frequently than the general population. This observation is reinforced if we restrict
our examination to those individuals among the perpetrators who we have classified as having
exhibited blameworthy behaviour.
25
Proportion of perpetrators exhibiting non-blameworthy (n=206) and
blameworthy (n=219) behaviour, respectively, who have previous
convictions. Sorted according to crim inal offence.
non-blameworthy
blameworthy
40 %
36 %
35 %
30 %
25 %
20 %
20 %
18 %
16 %
15 %
15 %
12 %
12 %
10 %
11 %
8%
5%
4%
5%
2%
2%
1%
0%
Traffic*
Personal gain
Narcotics
Driving under
influence of
drugs/alcohol**
Violence
Other
Multiple offences
Figure 11: Proportions of perpetrators exhibiting non-blameworthy (n=206) and blameworthy
(n=219) behaviour, respectively, who have previous convictions. Data are sorted according to the
nature of the criminal offence.
*”Road traffic-related” also includes driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol
** Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is incorporated in “Road traffic-related”
Figure 11 demonstrates, among other things, that among those perpetrators with previous
convictions, road traffic-related offences represent the most common conviction among both those
exhibiting blameworthy and non-blameworthy behaviour. 36 % of those perpetrators who
exhibited blameworthy behaviour also had previous convictions for one or more road trafficrelated offences. The corresponding figure for those who exhibited non-blameworthy behaviour is
12 %.
Among those perpetrators who exhibited blameworthy behaviour, 11 % had substantial criminal
records with numerous offences recorded in the STRASAK database. Even though road trafficrelated offences are the most common, we also observe that as many 38 % of the perpetrators who
exhibited blameworthy behaviour also had previous convictions for offences other than the road
traffic-related (13 % were convicted solely for road traffic-related offences). We refer to figure
10. In the case of perpetrators who have not exhibited blameworthy behaviour, the proportion was
12 % (7 % were convicted solely for road traffic-related offences).
26
The proportions of blameworthy perpetrators with previous convictions, sorted into
subgroups defined by the nature of the blam eworthy behaviour
80 %
72 %
67 %
70 %
57 %
60 %
51 %
50 %
50 %
50 %
40 %
32 %
30 %
20 %
19 %
18 %
10 %
0%
NonBlameworthy
blameworthy
Drugs/
alcohol
Drugs/
alcohol+
speeding
Very high
speed
High speed
Speed too
high for
conditions
Speeding+
aggressive
behaviour
Aggressive
behaviour
Figure 12: Proportion of blameworthy perpetrators with previous convictions sorted into
subgroups defined by the nature of the blameworthy behaviour as a cause of fatal accidents. The
hatched columns show the proportions of previously convicted perpetrators who have exhibited
blameworthy and non-blameworthy behaviour, respectively. The blocked colour columns display
the proportion of previously convicted perpetrators sorted according to the nature of their
blameworthy behaviour (driving impaired by drugs/alcohol, speeding, aggressive driver
behaviour).
Figure 12 shows that the sub-group “perpetrators under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol”
exhibits the highest level of previous convictions, i.e., accidents in which driving impairment due
to drugs and/or alcohol was the sole principal cause. As many as 72 % of this sub-group of
perpetrators had previous convictions. In comparison, we observe that of the perpetrators involved
in accidents in which the cause was ”speed too high for road conditions”, only 19 % had previous
convictions. As noted in the foregoing, only 18 % of the perpetrators who did not exhibit
blameworthy behaviour had previous convictions. It is thus apparent that the more
blameworthy the behaviour exhibited during an accident, the higher the proportion of
previous convictions among the perpetrators.
27
The proportions of previously convicted perpetrators impaired by drugs and/or
alcohol, sorted according to categories of criminal offence (n=93)
80 %
70 %
70 %
60 %
57 %
54 %
50 %
40 %
33 %
30 %
32 %
29 %
22 %
20 %
22 %
Other
Multiple
offences
20 %
10 %
0%
Previously Previously
convicted convicted, for
non-traffic
offences***
Traffic*
Narcotics Personal gainDriving under Violence
influence of
drugs/alcohol**
Figure 13: The proportions of previously convicted perpetrators impaired by drugs and/or
alcohol, sorted according to various categories of criminal offence (n=93). The hatched columns
show the total proportions of previously convicted perpetrators impaired by drugs and/or alcohol.
The blocked colour columns display the proportion of perpetrators impaired by drugs and/or
alcohol with previous convictions for road traffic-related offences, narcotics and crimes
committed for personal gain, etc.
*”Road traffic-related” also includes driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol
** Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is incorporated in “Road traffic-related”
*** Persons with only traffic-offences excluded.
Driving impairment due to drugs and/or alcohol is regarded as being the principal cause in 93
accidents, either alone or in combination with speeding. Figure 13 demonstrates that previous
road traffic-related convictions are the most common among perpetrators whose driving was
impaired by drugs and/or alcohol. 54 % of perpetrators whose driving was impaired by drugs
and/or alcohol have previous convictions for a road traffic-related offence. Second to this come
crimes committed for personal gain and/or narcotics-related offences, represented by 32 % and 33
%, respectively. Even though the majority of contraventions are linked to road traffic-related
offences, as many as 57 % of the perpetrators in this group had previous convictions for other
types of offence. In other words, 13 % had previous convictions for road traffic-related offences
alone.
28
The proportions of previously convicted perpetrators involved in accidents
attributed to speeding, and sorted according to type of criminal offence
(n=153)
80 %
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
47 %
33 %
31 %
30 %
16 %
20 %
14 %
16 %
11 %
11 %
9%
10 %
0%
Previously Previously
convicted convicted, for
non-traffic
offences***
Traffic*
Personal gainDriving under Narcotics
influence of
drugs/alcohol**
Violence
Other
Multiple
offences
Figure 14: The proportions of previously convicted perpetrators involved in accidents attributed
to speeding, sorted according to various categories of criminal offence (n=153). The hatched
columns show the total proportions of previously convicted perpetrators involved in accidents
attributed to speeding. The blocked coloured columns display the proportion of perpetrators
involved in accidents attributed to speeding with previous convictions for traffic-related offences,
narcotics and crimes committed for personal gain, etc.
*”Road traffic-related” also includes driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol
** Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is incorporated in “Road traffic-related”
*** Persons with only traffic-offences excluded.
In 153 accidents, speeding is recorded as the principal cause, either alone or in combination with
driver impairment due to drugs and/or alcohol or aggressive driver behaviour.
Figure 14 shows that road traffic-related contraventions represent the most common previous
conviction among perpetrators involved in accidents attributed to speeding (31 %). 16 % had
previous convictions for crimes committed for personal gain, and 14 % for driving under the
influence of drugs and/or alcohol. In total, 47 % of perpetrators who we have registered as having
been involved in accidents attributed to speeding, also have previous convictions. 33 % have
convictions for other than road traffic-related offences.
These results are in agreement with other studies which have examined the relationship between
criminal behaviour and road traffic-related contraventions, and studies of personality
types/personality traits and risk-taking behaviour. There is a correlation between risk-taking
behaviours in various settings. We refer to a more detailed description of these phenomena in
SINTEF’s literature study in Part 2 of this report.
Drivers who exhibited blameworthy behaviour in connection with accidents also have a
conspicuous record of previous convictions.
Road traffic-related offences will often be regarded by persons convicted for violent crime, crimes
committed for personal gain, or narcotics-related crime as minor offences, and the threshold for
contravening road traffic provisions among such individuals is lower than among persons with no
previous criminal convictions.
29
1.6 Further remarks regarding the accidents (time of day, nature of the accident, extent of
injury, type of vehicle)
1.6.1 Day of the week, time of day/year
More accidents involving blameworthy behaviour as the principal cause occur during the
weekends, during the evenings and at night than accidents for which the principal cause is other
than blameworthy behaviour. Moreover, a somewhat larger proportion of accidents attributed to
blameworthy behaviour occur during the summer than at other seasons of the year.
Day of the week and time of day
not blameworthy
blameworthy
18
16
No. of accidents
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
00- 06- 12- 18- 00- 06- 12- 18- 00- 06- 12- 18- 00- 06- 12- 18- 00- 06- 12- 18- 00- 06- 12- 18- 00- 06- 12- 1806 12 18 24 06 12 18 24 06 12 18 24 06 12 18 24 06 12 18 24 06 12 18 24 06 12 18 24
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Figure 15: Incidence of accidents (day of the week and time of day) for the causal groups
blameworthy/non-blameworthy behaviour (N=425)
Figure 15 shows the distribution of fatal accidents attributed to both blameworthy and nonblameworthy behaviour, plotted against the days of the week and time of day. Accidents attributed
to blameworthy behaviour exhibit peaks later in the day than those attributed to non-blameworthy
behaviour. Accidents attributed to non-blameworthy behaviour exhibit a more regular pattern
independent of the day of the week, with a peak occurring during the period 12-18 on all
weekdays. To a large degree, this corresponds to the periods when traffic volumes are heaviest. In
contrast, accidents attributed to blameworthy behaviour generally exhibit lower accident
frequencies during weekdays, and higher levels at the weekends. There is also a more even
distribution of accident incidence during the day on weekdays than at weekends for this category
of accident. Taking the day as a whole, we observe greater variation in frequency, with a peak
during the evening/night time.
30
Time of year
non-blameworthy
blameworthy
35 %
30 %
25 %
20 %
15 %
10 %
5%
0%
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Winter
Figure 16: Percentage of fatal accidents (2004-2005) plotted against season of the year for the
categories blameworthy/non-blameworthy behaviour (N=425)
The distribution of occurrence of blameworthy/non-blameworthy accidents in relation to time of
year is presented in figure 16. The figure shows that the frequency of accidents attributed to
blameworthy behaviour exhibits greater variation during the year than that for accidents attributed
to non-blameworthy behaviour. Most accidents attributed to blameworthy behaviour occur during
the spring and summer (25 % and 30 %, respectively), whereas the proportion in both autumn and
winter is only 20 %. The proportion of accidents attributed to non-blameworthy behaviour
remains consistent at about 25 % during each season, although most accidents of this type actually
occur in winter.
1.6.2
Class of road and speed limits
Class of road
non-blameworthy
blameworthy
50 %
45 %
40 %
35 %
30 %
25 %
20 %
15 %
10 %
5%
0%
European
highways
National roads
Figure 17 Class of road
County roads
Municipal roads
Private roads
unknown
31
Speed limits
non-blameworthy
blameworthy
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0%
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
unknown
Figure 18 Speed limits
Figures 17 and 18 show that the incidence of accidents attributed to the causal categories
blameworthy and non-blameworthy behaviour is more or less evenly distributed in terms of the
class of road on which the accidents occur, and the speed limits stipulated on the road in question.
Only minor differences are observed. When compared with accidents attributed to nonblameworthy behaviour, the incidence of those attributed to blameworthy behaviour is somewhat
higher on national and county class roads, and somewhat lower on European highway class roads.
This may indicate that blameworthy driver behaviour is more common on local roads, and that
non-blameworthy driver behaviour is more representative of the general road traffic situation. We
also observe that most accidents occur on European highway and national class roads, and within
80 km/t zones.
32
1.6.3
Nature of the accident
Type of accident
non-blameworthy
blameworthy
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Same travel
direction
Opposing travel
direction
Crossing travel
direction
Pedestrian
Driving off the road
Other
Figure 19: Incidence of various types of accident for the causal groups blameworthy/nonblameworthy behaviour (N=425)
Among the accidents attributed to blameworthy behaviour, the most common involve vehicles
leaving the carriageway, followed by collisions with oncoming traffic (see figure 19). As stated
previously, accidents attributed to driver impairment due to the influence of drugs and/or alcohol
are frequently linked to the vehicle in question driving off the road.
Moreover, many of the accidents involving collisions are attributed to inattentiveness or a
suspicion that the driver had fallen asleep, was feeling indisposed, or was attempting suicide, i.e.
accidents which are categorised as “non-blameworthy”.
1.6.4
Extent of injury
Extent of injury (death/survival of perpetrator) grouped according to principal
cause of accident
Killed
Survivor
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Chance accident,
suicide, feeling
indisposed, fell asleep
Inattentiveness
Non-blameworthy
Speed too high for road Speeding or aggressive Drugs/alcohol, excessive
conditions
behaviour
speeding and/or
agressive behaviour
Blameworthy
Figure 20: Extent of injury grouped according to the principal cause of accident (n=425)
33
Figure 20 demonstrates that the perpetrator dies in approximately 70 % of fatal accidents
attributed to blameworthy behaviour.
The figure also shows that the perpetrator has survived in about 70 % of fatal accidents in which
inattentiveness was the principal cause. This can be explained by the fact that a very high
proportion of accidents involving pedestrians and motorcycles occur in this category.
1.6.5
Type of vehicle
Type of vehicle
Private cars**
100 %
3%
90 %
12 %
80 %
6%
MC/moped
Heavy vehicles*
Other
1%
7%
19 %
8%
4%
8%
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
78 %
72 %
80 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0%
Non-blameworthy
Blameworthy
Prop. of registered vehicles on the
road
Figure 21: The relationship between type of vehicle and the causal groups blameworthy/nonblameworthy behaviour (N=425), plotted together with each vehicle type as a proportion of the
total number of vehicles on the road.
*lorries/heavy goods vehicles/buses
** incl. vans
Figure 21 shows which type of vehicle the perpetrator was driving when the accident occurred,
sorted according to whether the accident in question was attributed to the perpetrator’s
blameworthy or non-blameworthy behaviour, respectively. For comparison, the figure also shows
each respective vehicle type as a proportion of the total number of vehicles on the road.
As is demonstrated in figure 21, blameworthy perpetrators constitute a higher proportion in the
MC/moped category than non-blameworthy perpetrators, and a lesser proportion in the heavy
vehicle and private car categories. In other respects, the incidence of type of vehicle driven by
perpetrators exhibiting blameworthy and non-blameworthy behaviours is very similar. In general,
the proportion of private cars driven by perpetrators is somewhat lower as a proportion of the total
number of vehicles on the road, while the proportion of heavy vehicle and MC/ moped categories
is higher. In making comparisons with the total number of vehicles on the road, we must also take
mileage into account. For example, on average a motorcycle will accumulate less mileage per year
than a private car. In other words, the proportion of MC/mopeds involved in accidents, and in
particular those accidents involving vehicles where the perpetrator exhibits blameworthy
behaviour, is very high.
34
Relationship between type of vehicle, age of perpetrator, and the causal groups
blameworthy/non-blameworthy behaviour (N=425)
under 30
30-49
90
50 and over
80
80
69
70
60
54
49
50
39
40
34
30
22
20
10
13
7
5
3
8
5
4
5
4
5
2
0
n-b.
b.
Heavy vehicles
n-b.
b.
Private cars
n-b. = non-blameworthy
n-b.
b.
MC/moped
b. = blameworthy
Figure 22: The relationship between type of vehicle, age of perpetrator, and the causal groups
blameworthy/non-blameworthy behaviour (N=425)
Figure 22 shows the distributions of age of perpetrator and vehicle type 2 for accidents grouped
according to whether the perpetrator exhibited blameworthy (b) or non-blameworthy (n-b)
behaviour. The figure demonstrates that the proportion of young people is highest among drivers
in the MC/moped category, and lowest among heavy vehicle drivers. Non-blameworthy
perpetrators in the MC/moped category exhibit a relatively constant age distribution, whereas
there is a very high proportion of blameworthy perpetrators aged less than 30 years in the same
vehicle category. The same tendency can be seen in the case of private cars, but is far less
pronounced.
1.6.6
2
Age of private cars
Vehicle = “other” and bicycles are not incorporated in this figure
35
Relationships between age of car (al l perpetrators and blameworthy perpetrators), and
the number of vehicles on the road (ave. 2004-2005)
Perpetrators' cars
Blameworthy perpetrators' cars
Private cars on road (ave. 04-05)
35 %
31 %
30 %
25 %
23 %
20 %
17 %18 %
24 %
25 %
19 %
17 %
15 %
15 %
16 %
15 %
10 %
24 %
14 %
13 %
8%
8%
5% 5%
5%
0%
0-3
4-7
8-11
12-15
16-20
21-
Age of car (years)
Figure 23: Relationships between age of car (all perpetrators), age of car driven by perpetrators
exhibiting blameworthy behaviour, and the total number of vehicles on the road in the period
2004-2005
Figure 23 shows the distribution of private cars involved in accidents grouped according to: the
average number of cars on the road in the period 2004-2005, the age of the car driven by the
perpetrator, and the age of cars driven by perpetrators who have exhibited blameworthy
behaviour, respectively. The proportion of less than 4-year old cars involved in accidents is less
than these cars’ proportion of the total number of cars on the road. The reverse situation is true for
cars of the 16-20 year vintage. In this case the proportion of cars involved in accidents is higher
when compared with the total number of the cars of equivalent age on the road. This indicates that
the perpetrators drive cars that are older than those driven by the population in general. This is
true to an even greater degree for perpetrators who have exhibited blameworthy behaviour.
1.7 Road traffic victims
The term “victim” is used to describe a person who has died in an accident, but who is not a
perpetrator. There is at least one victim involved in 206 of the 425 fatal accidents, and 226 victims
in total. 188 accidents involve a single victim, 16 accidents involve 2 victims, and 2 accidents
involve a total of 3 victims. Three victims represent the highest number in any single accident. In
31 of the 206 accidents involving victims, the perpetrator also died (15 %).
1.7.1 The relationship between risk and the victim
Even if it is the perpetrator who is defined as being the closest to assuming responsibility for the
accident in question, it is possible that the victims also have behaved in such a way that
contributed significantly to the cause of their deaths. They may have exposed themselves to
danger or taken a major or minor risk. An approximate evaluation has been carried out of which
victims about whom it could be said in one way or another behaved either recklessly or took a risk
to the extent that they ought to be regarded as “risk-takers”.
36
Examples of risk-takers may include those who have chosen to be a passenger in a car with a
driver whom they were aware was under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, who accepted
reckless driving, who neglected to wear a seat belt or helmet, who attempted to cross a road either
outside the limits of a pedestrian crossing, or without checking for oncoming traffic.
The category “victim” also includes individuals who are not regarded as risk-takers, such as those
who have used pedestrian crossings, have driven responsibly, have been the passenger in a vehicle
in which the driver has driven responsibly, or have been a passenger in a situation where it cannot
be said that the person in question has taken a risk (even if the driver in such cases is judged to be
the perpetrator).
93 of the 226 victims are judged to be risk-takers. In the case of 7 victims, information is so
sketchy that the issue of risk-taking has not been evaluated. The remaining 126 victims are judged
not to have exposed themselves to risk. These represent the “innocent victims”. They constitute 57
% of all victims defined in the study, and 26 % of all the 476 persons who died as a result of the
425 fatal accidents recorded in the period 2004-2005. On average, this represents a total of 63
persons who died each year during this period in road traffic accidents as “entirely innocent”
victims.
Accident victims grouped accordi ng to road user and risk-taker categories (n=226)
Risk takers
Non-risk takers
Risk profile unknown
120
6
100
80
55
1
60
40
42
29
51
20
24
18
0
Pedestrian
Passenger
Driver
Figure 24: Accident victims grouped according to road user and risk-taker categories (n=226)
Figure 24 demonstrates that most non-risktaking victims are found as passengers in vehicles. Next
come victims who are also drivers (of vehicles other than that driven by the perpetrator), and
victims who are pedestrians. The proportion who are risk-takers is lower for drivers than for
pedestrians and passengers, in which categories there is a more even distribution. This is due
primarily to the fact that a driver defined as a risk-taker is most often also regarded as the
perpetrator and not the victim.
37
Table 4: Grouping of victims according to their risk behaviour profiles and the blameworthy/nonblameworthy behaviour of the perpetrator, respectively.
Victim
Perpetrator
Non-blameworthy
Blameworthy
Total
Risk profile unknown
43
81
1
50
45
6
Total
125
101
93
126
7
226
Risk-taker
Non-risk-taker
Table 4 demonstrates the extent to which the victims in fatal accidents during the two-year period
2004-2005 have died in an accident involving blameworthy behaviour on the part of the
perpetrator, and to what extent they were the victim of their own risk behaviour.
As many as 81 victims have died without having either exhibited risky behaviour themselves or
been exposed to a perpetrator who has exhibited blameworthy behaviour. In other words, no
directly involved parties can be blamed for the accident in question.
In addition, we observe that 45 victims have taken no risks themselves, but have been subject to a
perpetrator who has exhibited blameworthy behaviour. It is perhaps these accidents which trigger
the most emotionally-charged reactions among the victim’s surviving relatives and others. The
victims have taken no form of risk themselves, but have died as a result of the reckless behaviour
of other drivers. Such accidents can be compared with crimes in which the victim has been subject
to unprovoked violence.
A total of 93 victims are judged to have taken risks. Somewhat over half of these have done so in
connection with accidents where the perpetrator has exhibited blameworthy behaviour, e.g., either
by sitting as a passenger in a vehicle with a driver whom the victim was aware was under the
influence of drugs and/or alcohol, or by condoning risky driver behaviour.
The other half represent situations in which the victims have taken a risk, but where the
perpetrator has not acted in a blameworthy manner, such as when a pedestrian attempts to cross
the road outside the limits of a pedestrian crossing without checking that the car is going to stop.
38
Fatalities grouped according to victim /perpetrator status and further
according to behaviour (risk taking/blameworthi ness, n=476)
Victim
risk taker
with blameworthy
perpetrator
11 %
Victim
risk taker with
non-blameworthy
perpetrator
9%
Perpetrator
exhibiting blameworthy
behaviour
32 %
Victim
non-risk taker
with blameworthy
perpetrator
9%
Victim
non-risk taker
with non-blameworthy
perpetrator
17 %
Perpetrator
exhibiting
non-blameworthy
behaviour
21 %
Figure 25 Fatalities grouped according to victim/perpetrator status and further according to
behaviour in terms of acceptance of risk and blameworthiness (n=476)
In total, 241 individuals died in road traffic accidents during this period after taking one or
another form of risk, either as a victim who accepted a risk or as a perpetrator guilty of exhibiting
blameworthy behaviour). An additional 45 individuals died at the hands of a perpetrator
exhibiting blameworthy behaviour without having taken any form of risk themselves. In other
words, a total of 286 individuals have died as a result of blameworthy behaviour and/or because
they have accepted some form of risk. This represents 61 % of all those who lost their lives during
this period, as shown in figure 25.
1.7.2 Links between the victims and the perpetrator
137 of the victims (61 %) had no links, while 89 (39 %) had some form of link with the
perpetrator. Of the 112 passengers who died, 79 % were passengers in the vehicle driven by the
perpetrator.
39
1.7.3
Age and gender of the victims
Proportions of accident victims in relation to age and gender (n=226)
female
male
18 %
16 %
14 %
12 %
10 %
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80 and over
Figure 26: Proportions of accident victims in relation to age and gender (N=226)
Figure 26 shows the proportion of accident victims in relation to age and gender. 56 % of the
victims are men, and 44 % women. The victims vary in age from 0 to 97, with an average age of
42. The proportion of victims aged less than 30 years of age (43 %) is a little higher than that for
those aged over 30 (39 %). Naturally, there will be many more victims than perpetrators who are
less than 18 years of age. The proportion of perpetrators in the age group 18-29 (35 %) is higher
than that for victims in the same group (27 %). In general, age and gender among victims is more
evenly distributed than among perpetrators. The proportion of risk-takers is highest in the age
group 15-29 (almost 60 %).
40
1.7.4
Victims - type of vehicle and road user category
Accident victims grouped according to road user category and type of vehicle (n=226)
Driver
Passenger
140
120
100
80
98
60
40
62
9
20
20
27
0
Pedestrian/cyclist
MC/moped
Private car**
4
3
1
2
Heavy vehicles*
Other
Figure 27: Accident victims grouped according to road user category and type of vehicle (n=226)
*lorries/heavy goods vehicles/buses
** incl. vans
Figure 27 shows a grouping of accident victims according to their road user category and type of
vehicle. The figure shows that 125 victims died in private cars. This represents more than half of
all victims, of whom 80 % were passengers and 20 % drivers.
Among the passengers, 80 % were travelling in the same car as the perpetrator. The remainder
were passengers in a car other than that driven by the perpetrator. 48 % were less than 30 years of
age. Among the victims in private cars (passengers and drivers), 54 % were men and 46 %
women. 71 of the victims who died in private cars (59 %) had taken no form of risk.
20 of the victims died in a total of 18 accidents involving heavy motorcycles. In 2 accidents, both
the vehicle driver and a passenger died. 80 % of victims riding motorcycles were men. Their ages
range from 15 to 58. The ten-year cohort 40 to 50 contains the highest proportion (35 %). In
contrast to perpetrators riding light motorcycles/mopeds, the victims riding heavy motorcycles
were not typically young people. About half of the motorcycle victims had taken no form of risk.
53 pedestrian victims died in a total of 52 accidents. 2 pedestrians were killed during one accident
(a mother with her child in a pram). The ages of the victims range from 10 months to 92. The
proportion of elderly people is high. 40 % are aged 70 or more. A little over half (53 %) of the
pedestrian victims are judged not to have taken any form of risk (all pedestrians who died on
crossings are classified as “non-risk-takers”, regardless of whether they had checked for the
presence of traffic, worn reflector patches, or were impaired in some way).
41
1.8 Protective equipment
Protective equipment such as seat belts (cars) and helmets (MC/mopeds) represent effective
means of reducing injury in the event of an accident. For this reason, we have examined the
degree to which such equipment has been used, as documented in our source material.
1.8.1
Seat belt use – private cars
Seat belt use among perpetrators and victims travelling in private cars (n=292)
Seat belt worn
Seat belt not worn
Seat belt status unknown
100 %
90 %
80 %
67
48
64
70 %
60 %
50 %
19
42
13
40 %
30 %
20 %
62
47
Perpetrator (died)
Perpetrator (survived)
54
10 %
0%
Victim
Figure 28: Seat belt use among perpetrators and victims travelling in private cars (drivers and
passengers) (n=292)
Figure 28 shows that about 40 % of perpetrators and victims travelling in private cars have worn
seat belts, whereas in about 20 % of cases, the data indicates that seat belts were not worn. The
proportion in the category “seat belt not worn” is higher among those who died (21 %) than
among those perpetrators who survived, where the proportion in the “seat belt not worn” category
was 10 %. The available data on seat belt use is inadequate to the extent that such information
regarding the remaining persons considered in the study is unknown.
Analytical reports on fatal accidents published by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration
(Statens vegvesen) for the period 2005 to 2007 provide better data. Results from these studies
reveal that between 41 and 47 % of those who lost their lives in accidents while travelling in a car
failed to wear a seat belt (Statens vegvesen, 2006, 2007 and 2008).
In the case of the use of helmets by motorcyclists and moped riders, the database is so small that it
is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions. However, the trend indicates that the heavier a
motorcycle, the more likely it is that the rider has worn a helmet. In the case of perpetrators and
victims riding heavy motorcycle categories, helmet use runs at 80-90 %. In total, 48 of 58
perpetrators and victims riding heavy motorcycles were wearing helmets.
1.9 Outcomes of the criminal prosecutions
This study of fatal accidents has involved a review of a total of 425 criminal prosecutions.
However, no evaluation has been made of the quality of the investigative or prosecution
42
procedures carried out. This work comes under the remit of the prosecuting authorities and is also
beyond the scope of this study.
1.9.1
Sentencing and decisions not to prosecute
Outcomes of criminal prosecuti ons i n cases involving fatal accidents
with surviving perpetrators 2004-2005 (n=175)
Appeal
as yet unresolved Penalty notice
3%
1%
Unconditional
withdrawal of
prosecution
2%
Acquittal
5%
Community
service order
1%
Conditional
custodial sentence
(incl. fines)
16 %
T otal - charges
withdrawn etc.
34 %
Unconditional
custodial sentence
(incl. part sentences)
38 %
Figure 29 Outcome of criminal prosecutions, surviving perpetrators (n=175)
The outcomes of criminal prosecutions are shown in figure 29. The figure includes only criminal
prosecutions involving surviving perpetrators, amounting to 175 in total. For various reasons, the
cases of the 250 perpetrators who died were not prosecuted. The figure demonstrates that for
accidents involving 60 (about a third) of the 175 surviving perpetrators, the cases were dropped,
whereas 115 perpetrators have been subject to criminal prosecution. “Insufficient evidence”
represents the most common grounds for not prosecuting cases for which the charges were
dropped. 67 of these have resulted in an immediate custodial sentence, while 28 resulted in a
suspended term of imprisonment. 9 of the indicted individuals were acquitted. The remaining
cases were resolved either by a penalty notice, withdrawal of the prosecution and community
service orders. One case is still awaiting the outcome of an appeal.
In 88 cases of the 115 prosecutions, the indictment has invoked contravention of Section 239 of
the Norwegian Criminal Code (causal accessory to another person’s death).
43
Judgements grouped according to length of custodial sentence (n=95)
50
45
44
40
35
30
23
25
20
13
15
12
10
3
5
0
less than 3 months
3 to 6 months
6 to 12 months
1 to 2 years
2 years or more
Figure 30: Judgements grouped according to length of custodial sentence (n=95)
Of the 107 cases that were brought before the courts, 97 resulted in a conviction. In 2 cases
community service orders were issued, while custodial sentences were handed down in the
remaining 95 cases. Figure 30 shows the judgements grouped according to the length of the
custodial sentence. The figure shows that among the 95 cases, 44 resulted in a custodial sentence
of less than 3 months. In 26 cases the sentence was one year or more. The accident itself provided
the basis for the sentence in only one of the cases which resulted in a custodial sentence of more
than two years. The sentence in the two other cases in this category incorporated conviction for
additional offences.
44
1.9.2
Driver disqualification
Driver disqualification (n=103)
No loss of
licence
7%
Driving ban
8%
Less than one
year
13 %
1 - 2 years
22 %
Indefinite
disqualif.
15 %
5 years or
more
5%
3-4 years
30 %
Figure 31: Driver disqualification (n=103)
The presumed perpetrator’s driving licence is often confiscated by the police following a fatal
accident. If the perpetrator is later sentenced, the judgement or penalty notice may specify that the
perpetrator must be disqualified from driving for a stipulated period. Disqualification from driving
a motor vehicle was specified either in the judgement or penalty notice in a total of 103 cases (see
figure 31). The figure also incorporates examples involving the duration of the temporary driving
disqualification (confiscation of driving licence) in cases where no subsequent decision was taken
to disqualify the perpetrator. The reason for this is that it often takes a long time before criminal
cases come before the courts. In the meantime, a temporary confiscation can be rescinded. If the
period of temporary confiscation is estimated to be equivalent to that which would have been
stipulated as part of a judgement, the issue of disqualification from driving is not considered.
Figure 31 shows the durations of incidences of disqualification from driving a motor vehicle,
together with the bans imposed on those perpetrators who were not previously in possession of a
licence for those cases where a decision has been legally enforced, i.e., a penalty notice or
sentence. Figure 31 demonstrates that in a total of 85 % of cases the perpetrator lost his/her
entitlement to drive either for a stipulated period or indefinitely. In 8 % of cases, a driving ban
was stipulated for perpetrators who had not previously been in possession of a driving licence, and
in 7 % of cases the driving licence was not confiscated.
45
PART II: LITERATURE STUDY OF RISK-PRONE DRIVERS
Aim
The client for this literature study carried out by SINTEF is NMPS. This literature study
presented here represents the project’s second phase.
The aim of the literature study is to identify the distinctive characteristics of drivers who are
especially risk-prone as a result of their personalities, mindsets, driving behaviour, involvement in
accidents and behaviour in settings other than traffic –related situations (criminal behaviour). The
project will also help towards achieving a better knowledge-based understanding of risk-prone
young people, and will conclude by proposing measures which the NMPS can implement in order
to prevent risky driver behaviour.
Method
The literature study is based on a review of scientific publications in the field, located by means of
a literature search in the relevant periodical databases and the library database BIBSYS. Much of
the literature has been located by referring to references cited in other articles. The study has
incorporated findings from the entire spectrum of western research sources, but has been restricted
to literature published since 1990.
The review has yielded information regarding typical personality traits associated with risk-prone
drivers, the sociological characteristics these drivers share, driver behaviour and other forms of
criminal behaviour. Special emphasis has been given to locating literature sources addressing the
behaviour of young risk-prone drivers. We have also examined research findings related to young
people’s maturation processes, development and life situations as they relate to areas in their lives
other than the traffic-related. This has provided us with opportunities to identify correlations in a
cross-disciplinary perspective.
The term “risk-prone” is used here to describe all drivers who are frequently involved in road
traffic accidents (compared with other drivers, and not necessarily in relation to total mileage
driven or as a proportion of the population), and is applied regardless of whether it is drivers
themselves or other road users who have come to harm. “Risky” driver behaviour is defined as
driving that is either illegal or generally accepted as being dangerous, such as speeding, driving
under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and/or driving without wearing a seat belt or other
protective equipment.
46
2 STATUS OF RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF RISKY DRIVER
BEHAVIOUR
There is much research which indicates that risk-proneness among young people in road traffic
situations is to a great extent the result of risky driver behaviour, in that accidents involving young
drivers are frequently associated with high speed, drugs and/or alcohol and failure to wear a seat
belt. However, not all young people behave in this way in traffic situations. Many researchers
have investigated the identity of the most risk-prone drivers, and have attempted to pinpoint their
distinctive characteristics. We present in this chapter the main findings of our review of the
research carried out in this field. The literature study is based on the following issues:
Personality – what are the psychological traits that distinguish conspicuously risk-prone
drivers in road traffic situations?
What significance do biological factors and brain maturity have for risky behaviour?
What sociological characteristics do these drivers share?
To what extent are drivers who exhibit risky behaviour also involved in criminal
behaviour in settings other than in road traffic-related situations? Are there any
correlations between risky driving behaviour and other forms of criminal activity?
When and where are these drivers out on the roads?
2.1 Recognised personality traits among risk-prone drivers
The pursuit of excitement and novelty has been a persistent characteristic among human beings.
Research linked to human beings’ relationship to risk demonstrates that we all share a need for a
certain amount of novelty and excitement in our everyday lives. Psychiatrist Robert Cloninger at
Washington University Medical School in St. Louis defined this human trait as “novelty seeking”.
Individuals who score high on this trait are active, frequently distracted and make quick decisions.
Those who score low are more tranquil, reflective and can concentrate on the same problem for
longer periods (Hamer and Copeland, 1998).
The term “sensation seeking” and the definition of personality types associated with risky
behaviour have been the focus of research for many years. During the last 15-20 years many
studies have been carried out which have revealed correlations between various personality traits
and risky driver behaviour. It has been claimed that these traits for the most part influence
behaviour by expressing themselves as adverse attitudes to road traffic safety (Moe and Jenssen,
1990 and 1992, Ulleberg and Rundmo, 2003). In the following we will present those personality
traits which have been the subject of the most research focus to date.
2.1.1 Sensation seeking
The term “sensation seeking” is defined as follows:
A trait defined by the seeking of varied, novel, complex, and intense sensations and experiences,
and the willingness to take physical, social, legal, and financial risks for the sake of such
experience (Zuckerman, 1994, p. 27).
Sensation seeking represents an individual’s optimistic tendency to explore and break through
boundaries, where impulsiveness involves making quick situational decisions, and sociality
involves a willingness to come into contact with other people regardless of whether these are
known to the subject or not. Thus this concerns people who are willing to take risks to satisfy a
constant and powerful need for new experiences.
47
During the last 40-45 years, the American psychiatrist Marvin Zuckerman has emerged as the
leading researcher within this field, but many other research workers have also studied the
phenomenon and have uncovered associations with risky driver behaviour (e.g., Arnett, 1996;
Schwebel et al., 2006; Dahlen et al., 2004; Dahlen and White, 2006; Iversen and Rundmo, 2002;
Sommer et al., 2008). Today, sensation seeking is one of the most common psychological traits
used to explain why some drivers are more risk-prone than others. In an earlier literature review
carried out in this field, Jonah (1997) concluded that sensation seeking provided the explanation
for between 10 and 15 % of risky driver behaviour. There were also consistent positive
correlations between sensation seekers and their actual involvement in accidents. Sensation
seeking was found to be more characteristic of men than of women, and more so also of the young
than of older people.
Zuckerman has defined 4 risk dimensions which form the basis for his studies and theories
regarding sensation seeking and personality:
1.
Physically dangerous challenges - Thrill and Adventure Seeking (TAS)
This dimension focuses on physically dangerous challenges, such as mountaineering, hang
gliding, boxing, alpine skiing, car driving, diving, etc. The principal feature of TAS is that it
involves activities where the consequences in the event of a mistake are very serious in terms of
the subject’s health.
2.
Social challenges - Disinhibition Seeking (DIS)
This dimension is oriented more towards social settings, where an individual can realise his or her
need for excitement by means of various aspects of social behaviour. DIS behaviour is
characterised by a willingness among subjects to challenge convention, do daring and reckless
things in the company of others, appear in front of audiences, be assertive, lay themselves bare,
behave irresponsibly and without inhibition and engage in purely unrestrained behaviour. We find
examples of this in activities such as the financial markets, criminal activity, drink driving, the use
of alcohol and/or drugs, partying, nights on the town, and in the media among TV and radio
personalities, leaders and politicians. The settings for such behaviour are different from TAS, but
they enjoy taking risks and experiencing excitement.
3.
New and exciting experiences - Experience seeking (ES)
This dimension involves the subject seeking novel experiences in association with activities such
as art, music, travel to new destinations, unconventional behaviour and contact with artists.
4.
Monotony and boredom - Boredom susceptibility (BS)
This dimension addresses the extent to which the subject experiences everyday life as being
monotonous and boring. Sensation seekers will avoid routine tasks, regulations and tedious
situations and people at all costs.
A great deal of research indicates that the relationship between the actual and perceived risk for
those seeking physically dangerous challenges (the TAS group) and those seeking social
challenges (the DIS group) may be different. Seeking physical challenges entails the necessity of
practising in order to master them. Such training provides know-how and skills which mean that
the TAS group establishes a more realistic association with the risks involved and their own
capabilities. They select a degree of difficulty in their challenges which corresponds to their own
levels of expertise. This powerful motivation to overcome challenges is also supported by the fact
that they do not want to make mistakes (Atkinson, 1966, and Sorrentino et al., 1991).
Several studies have pointed to a positive correlation between risk-takers in the TAS group and a
powerful motivation to overcome challenges linked to competitive activities and skills
development (Bone et al., 1974; Blankenstein et al., 1976; Breivik, 1986; Moe and Jenssen,
1990). This has been a conspicuous phenomenon among practitioners of extreme sports. The fact
that this motivation to overcome challenges is very pronounced among the TAS group may
explain why this group is less prone to accidents. In a comparative study of rally and everyday
48
drivers carried out in Norway, it was demonstrated that rally drivers exhibit powerful traits
compatible with risk-takers in the TAS group, and that they appear to be less accident-prone than
everyday drivers, although they are more frequently apprehended in speed controls (Moe, 1992).
Risk-takers in the DIS group do not appear to share the same motivation to overcome challenges
in order to achieve “competence”. They are more irresponsible and uninhibited in terms of their
relationship with their surroundings and the activity in which they are taking part. Nevertheless,
they have great faith in their competence. The combination of youth, alcohol, narcotic drugs, sex,
parties, criminal activity, motoring and motorcycle riding are typical behavioural traits among the
DIS group. Studies demonstrate that there are clear correlations between driving under the
influence of drugs and/or alcohol and sensation seeking among the DIS group (Jeffery, 1989).
Moreover, a study carried out in Sweden into lifestyle factors and accident-proneness points out
that in addition to the gender factor, both drugs and/or alcohol and time of day are major factors in
influencing accident-proneness associated with young people (Berg and Gregersen, 1993). In
addition, and away from road traffic-related settings, it appears that the DIS group are involved in
more accidents that the TAS group (Krogen and Romundstad, 1993).
Studies carried out in Norway have also identified sensation seeking as an important factor
influencing risky behaviour. In a study carried out at SINTEF, Moe and Jenssen (1990) sought to
distinguish between young people who enjoyed high and low levels of risk, respectively. The
results demonstrated that some young people, the so-called “high-risk group”, regarded their
requirement for speed and excitement as a basic need. They also regarded themselves as much
better drivers, and perceived levels of risk to be lower, than those in the “low-risk group”. They
were also more self-centred and egoistical.
In an extension of the risk studies carried out in 1990, the same researchers published an article in
1993 in which they identified two types of risk-takers; those who attempt to overcome physically
dangerous challenges such as in extreme sports (cf. Zuckerman’s TAS group), and those who seek
excitement and are willing to take risks in social settings such as in criminal or otherwise
uninhibited behaviour, alcohol abuse and casual sex (Zuckerman’s DIS group). In total, the two
groups constituted about 25-30 % of men and 5-10 % of women in the 18-24 age group. The latter
group appeared to be more involved in accidents and risky behaviour in road traffic situations
than the first, and was more uninhibited and irresponsible in relation to their surroundings and the
activity in which they intended to take part.
Both groups shared typical traits such as a greater faith in their own driving capabilities and a
tendency to underestimate risk. They were also more egoistical and less sociable than other young
people.
Moe (2007) has carried out an evaluation of the Norwegian road traffic safety campaign “Si ifra”
(“Come forward”) which was promoted in the Norwegian counties of Vestfold and Aust- and
Vest-Agder. He identified two principal risk behavioural categories among upper secondary
school students – those who were “risk-optimistic and risk-indifferent”, and those who favoured
“speed mania and thrill-seeking”. The former category constituted about 20 % of the young
people surveyed, and was characterised by young people who had an unrealistic awareness of risk,
and who were indifferent to the consequences of their actions. This group also resorted to alcohol
in combination with motoring as a part of their thrill-seeking behaviour.
In the latter category (represented by 45 % of the students), drugs and/or alcohol were not
important, but motoring as a means of thrill-seeking was a key factor. These young people also
thought less about the consequences of their actions that those in the lower risk category.
Members of both groups had been involved in more accidents and dangerous situations than other
young people, and had more frequently been passengers in cars travelling at high speed/racing
and/or as/with drivers under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, and wore seat belts less often.
They also had a greater belief in the own driving capabilities. It is important to note from this
49
study that young people in both of these high-risk categories were positive to the campaign,
although not to the same extent as the other young people.
50
Results from studies carried out both in Norway and in other countries demonstrate that some of
the traits typically associated with “sensation seekers” can be summarised as follows:
there are more male “sensation seekers” than female
the need decreases with age (and wisdom)
they have greater faith in their own driving skills
they do not consider “dangerous activities” to be as hazardous as they really are
they exhibit greater accident-proneness
they are more frequently apprehended by police in radar speeding controls
they are more frequently apprehended for dangerous behaviour in road traffic situations
they are more self-centred and less sociable than others
they are more willing to sign on as combat soldiers in wartime
they are more willing to drive under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol
they are more willing to experiment with alcohol and a variety of narcotic substances
they enjoy heavier rock music than others
they are more frequently involved in sexual relationships, and their relationships in general
are more play- and pleasure-oriented.
they experiment with several different types of food from foreign cultures
they enjoy photography and films depicting death, horror and sexual themes
they are more frequently than others among those who enjoy censored films
they prefer active participation to passivity
they are more likely to behave as “zappers” with the TV remote control
they enjoy “live music”
they are more frequently involved in sports
they are more likely to take part in extreme and contact sports
divers, parachutists, hang glider enthusiasts, mountaineers, racing drivers and alpine skiers
are typical representatives of the “high sensation seeker” category
Firemen, police patrol officers, journalists, combat photographers, commando soldiers,
etc., are often also sensation seekers
In a study published in 2007, Mallet and Vignoli problematise the use of sensation seeking as a
causal variable in connection with risky behaviour as defined by Zuckerman (described above).
They argue that such a definition entails that risky behaviour can be explained by a willingness to
take chances, which introduces a circular argument. They examined the validity of Arnett’s 1994
hypothesis that sensation seeking comprises two dimensions – intensity seeking (IS) and novelty
seeking (NS). They found that these two dimensions did not exhibit covariance, and so claimed
that we cannot incorporate both traits using “sensation seeking” as a generic term. However, they
also found some support that the IS trait (but not NS) increased the probability of the subject
exhibiting risky driver behaviour. However, the correlation was not strong. This can be explained
by the fact that when willingness to take chances is ignored as a research variable in this context,
the validity of the hypothesis also largely disappears. As yet, no articles examining this matter in
further detail have been published.
2.1.2 Road rage (“driving anger”)
“Road rage” or “driving anger” is used to characterise drivers who experience anger when in
charge of vehicle. Such feelings may be triggered by a variety of different traffic-related
situations. This form of anger can be risky in that it can express itself as aggressive driver
behaviour (e.g., speeding in order to catch the vehicle in front, or driving too close behind the car
in front), or because it has a detrimental effect on the driver’s concentration and control of the
vehicle (Deffenbacher et al., 2001). Many research workers have identified a correlation between
“road rage” and risky behaviour and/or the incidence of road traffic accidents (incl. Deffenbacher
51
et al., 2001 and 2003; King and Parker, 2008; Iversen and Rundmo, 2002; and Lonczak et al.,
2006).
In a review of the literature commissioned by the police, Ulleberg (2004) has found that the types
of aggressive driver behaviour which contributed most to increasing accident risk were excessive
speeding, driving too close to the vehicle in front, running a red light, dangerous overtaking
manoeuvres, and failure to halt at “Stop” and “Give-way” signs.
He also found that men, and particularly young men, drove more aggressively than women.
Interestingly enough, he also found that women could easily become more irritated than men in
certain road traffic situations. This indicates that the threshold for exhibiting aggressive behaviour
is lower among men than among women.
Ulleberg also investigated what measures had been taken in order to reduce aggressive driving in
other countries, principally in the USA. These included increased numbers of police controls, cooperation with the media in order to highlight the problem and to increase the public’s perception
of the chance of being caught, combined with mandatory anger management courses or courses in
defensive driving techniques for those who had been fined or convicted for aggressive driving
offences. Evaluations (albeit methodologically invalid) of these measures have generally
produced good results, although nothing is known of the long term effect of such courses.
2.1.3 The importance of personality – “The Big Five”
The five-factor personality trait model (“the Big Five”) is made up of dimensions which under
normal circumstances are regarded as being the major components of every individual’s
personality. The model is frequently applied in connection with personality research or testing,
and has also been used in connection with studies of driver behaviour. The five dimensions are
extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience (Glendon
et al., 2006). A subject’s score on these dimensions is regarded as having crucial significance for
his or her behaviour, inclusive of road traffic situations.
There follows a more detailed description of the characteristics that underpin the five factors,
together with research findings associated with each of the factors’ relationships with risky driver
behaviour.
Extraversion (vs. introversion)
Bold, self-confident, energetic, spontaneous, talkative, honest, enthusiastic, uninhibited, sociable,
outgoing, sharp, socially confident, controlling, lacking in emotional control, persuasive, warm,
gregarious, active, thrill-seeking, displaying positive emotions (Glendon et al., 2006).
Several researchers have found correlations between extraversion and parameters such as
involvement in traffic accidents, incidence of death or injury in such accidents, contravention of
traffic regulations and/or driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol (see, among others,
Sümer et al., 2005; Renner and Anderle, 2000: and Lev et al., 2008). However, Dahlen and White
(2006) found no correlation between extraversion and many aspects of driver behaviour.
According to Zuckerman (1994), extraversion exhibits a weak correlation with sensation seeking.
Neuroticism (vs. emotional stability)
Neurotic, tense, fearful, defensive, stressed, displaying powerful emotions, vulnerable,
hypersensitive, unstable, worried, anxious, emotional, hostile, depressed, take themselves too
seriously, impulsive (Glendon et al., 2006).
Neuroticism is found to exhibit a certain correlation with parameters such as involvement in
traffic accidents, incidence of death or injury in such accidents, aggressive driving and/or a lack of
enjoyment in driving (Sümer et al., 2005; Dahlen and White, 2006; Matthews et al., 1991).
Women tend to exhibit a higher level of neuroticism than men (Glendon et al., 2006).
52
Conscientiousness (vs. impulsivity)
Well-adjusted, exhibit inhibitions, conventional, careful, self-controlled, orderly, obsessive,
productive, cognitively structured, exhibit a compulsion to achieve, responsible, exaggerated
superego, planner, dogged, disciplined, precise, industrious, attentive on details, competent,
conscientious, self-disciplined, deliberate (Glendon et al., 2006).
In some studies, a negative correlation has been found between conscientiousness and selfinduced road traffic accidents, road traffic accidents in general and/or the incursion of fines for
road traffic offences (Sümer et al., 2005; Arthur and Graziano, 1996; Dahlen and White, 2006 – in
part; Schwebel et al., 2006). However, Cellar et al. (2000) found no such correlations.
Agreeableness
Exhibit empathy, are trusting of others, help others, are conventional and want to be liked (Vaa,
2004).
There is little research addressing the influence of agreeableness in this context. However, a few
studies have concluded that agreeableness exhibits a positive correlation with driver behaviour or
involvement in road traffic accidents (Sümer et al., 2005; Cellar et al, 2000; Dahlen and White,
2006).
Openness to experience (vs. tough/insensitivity)
Affectionate, trusting, understanding, aesthetic, sensitive, feminine, imaginative, unusual,
intellectual, tolerant, culturally-oriented, responsible, open, conceptual, innovative, changeoriented, independent, imagination, emotions, action, ideas, values (Glendon et al., 2006).
In common with agreeableness, the correlation between openness for experience and risky
behaviour and/or involvement in road traffic accidents has received little attention, and the few
studies that have been carried out have produced somewhat mixed results. Nicholson (2005) and
Dahlen and White (2006) found a positive correlation, but Arthur and Graziano (1996) found no
correlation, and Underwood (2005) obtained somewhat ambiguous results.
As we have seen, research into a correlation between the five-factor model and the risk of being
involved in road traffic accidents has produced mixed results. Some of the differences are the
result to a great extent of the fact that different measures of both risk and personality traits have
been employed in these studies. Clarke and Robertson (2005, quoted in Sümer et al., 2005) have
carried out a meta-analysis in an attempt to collate the results from a total of 47 studies of the
five-factor model’s validity in terms of explaining the risk of being involved in accidents. They
found that three of the personality dimensions in the model (extraversion, low levels of
agreeableness and low levels of conscientiousness) exhibited a correlation with accidentproneness. The findings associated with neuroticism and openness to experience are mixed.
Agreeableness and conscientiousness appeared to exert the most important influence on a
subject’s involvement in road traffic accidents. However, Clarke and Robertson emphasise the
need for improved models and a more systematic research effort in order to fully assess the causal
relationships between the variables involved.
In the 1990s, Marvin Zuckerman (2000) developed a separate “Big Five Model” questionnaire
which he termed ZKPQ. As a part of a number of highly comprehensive scientific studies carried
out during the last 30-40 years, Zuckerman has attempted to discover a top-down chain hierarchy
from assessed personality traits, via biological references to the genetic basis of the personality.
The personality model and the test were constructed on the basis of psychobiological tests in
which both Eysenck’s three-factor model and other models based on emotions and temperament
constituted the reference material (Zuckerman 2007). The model is subdivided into the following
five principal dimensions:
1.
Impulsive “sensation seeking”
53
Individuals who exhibit a tendency to act before they think. They are involved in multiple
activities and enjoy speed and excitement in their lives. They are preoccupied with novelty and
are constantly active.
2.
Neuroticism – anxiety
Individuals exhibit high levels of tension, are stress-intolerant, display a tendency to worry, and
quickly become fearful and apprehensive. They are frequently characterised by a lack of selfconfidence and are very easily offended by criticism from others.
3.
Aggression – hostility
Individuals with a tendency to be aggressive (both verbally and physically) and to exhibit
antisocial behaviour. They are quick-tempered, hot-blooded and will express their opinions
explicitly in any given situation.
4.
Sociable – outgoing
Describes the tendency to enjoy the company of other people. They enjoy gatherings, parties and
a lot of action and excitement. They dislike being alone and want to be in the company of others.
They have a wide circle of friends and cultivate fellowship and intimacy with others.
5.
Active – initiative
They enjoy activity and become restless when sitting still. They enjoy challenges and want to
“lend a hand” and pursue physical challenges. When they get involved in something they put
everything they have into it.
Zuckerman and Kuhlman (2000) studied the correlation between risk-taking and the personality
traits in their model among students in the USA. They examined risky activities such as smoking,
drinking alcohol, substance use, sex, recklessness and dangerous driving. The personality traits
which best explain this type of behaviour are “impulsive sensation seeking” (1), “aggression –
hostility” (3) and “sociable – outgoing” (4).
Their explanation of risky behaviour is both genetically-based, via a gene which promotes the
pursuit of novelty, and related to the brain’s rewards system by means of the excretion of
dopamine. Zuckerman has identified the following:
those who are high sensation seekers also have a more active “novelty gene”
by engaging in more risky behaviour, they experience higher levels of dopamine secretion
than low sensation seekers
the brain’s rewards effect (dopamine) increases the likelihood of behaviour repetition
high sensation seekers judge given situations as less dangerous than low sensation seekers
low sensation seekers experience more intense feelings of fear and anxiety. They do not
experience the brain’s reward effect to the same extent when they engage in risky
behaviour.
reactions of fear and anxiety among low sensation seekers reinforce their apprehension of
being involved in an accident.
Results from studies carried out among young people in Norway during the period between 2000
and 2006 demonstrate that all factors associated with personality and risk-willingness appear to be
of major relevance in explaining risky behaviour (Moe, 2003 and 2007). About 5,000 young
people ranging in age from 16-20 stated that they had participated in the following types of
driving behaviour as passengers in vehicles driven by young drivers “on one or more occasions
during the previous year”:
70-80 % had been in a car which had travelled at speeds of over 120 km/h
45-50 % had participated in street drag racing
30-40 % had incited the drivers to drive faster
40-45 % had been very frightened as a result of dangerous driving
54
2.1.4 Other personality traits
Other personality traits have been studied independently of the five-factor model, and have been
correlated with risky driver behaviour and/or involvement in traffic accidents. The following is a
brief list:
Hostility (Norris et al., 1998 and Schwebel et al., 2006)
Low self-confidence (Norris et al., 1998)
Impulsivity (Dahlen et al., 2005)
Boredom (Dahlen et al., 2005)
Emotional instability (Cellar et al., 2000; Dahlen and White, 2006; Sommer et al., 2008)
Subjectively accepted level of risk (Sommer et al., 2008; Ulleberg, 2002; Dahlen et al.,
2005; Iversen and Rundmo, 2002; Cellar et al., 2000)
Normlessness (Iversen and Rundmo, 2001)
Limited feelings of social responsibility (Sommer et al., 2008)
2.1.5 Personality types in preference to personality traits
Even though the majority of studies which have been carried out in this field have focused on
distinct variables associated with personality, it is natural to consider the possibility that several of
these may combine to result in an “unfavourable” amalgam in relation to driver behaviour (as
indeed is assumed by the five-factor model). In recent years there has also been greater focus than
previously on finding risk-prone personality types, as distinct from personality traits.
In 2002, Pål Ulleberg at the Norwegian Institute of Transport Economics (TØI) carried out a study
involving a thorough programme of tests, and identified six personality types among young
drivers based on several of the distinctive characteristics which have been identified earlier. Two
of these groups were characterised as “high risk”.
The first of these two groups consisted primarily of men (81 %), and are described as “socially
divergent”. Their typical character trait was that they exhibited little altruistic behaviour and low
levels of anxiety. They were sensation seekers, irresponsible and had little respect for legislation
and regulations. They also exhibited higher levels of confidence in their own competence as
drivers than others, and believed that there was little risk of them being involved in a road traffic
accident (in spite of the fact that they were more frequently involved in traffic accidents than
others).
The second group included a higher proportion of women (59 %) than the first, and is described as
“the aggressive” group. These were characterised by exhibiting higher levels of aggression and
anxiety, and less empathy than the other groups. They also scored higher than average on thrillseeking. In contrast to the first group, they did not regard themselves as especially good drivers,
and assessed the risk of their being involved in a road traffic accident as high.
The individuals in both of these groups were involved in road traffic accidents relatively often
(although the second group incurred no injuries), and exhibited both risky driver behaviour and
poor attitudes to traffic safety. They responded badly to attitude-modification measures and, as far
as the first group was concerned, Ulleberg concluded that police controls appeared to be the only
way of influencing their behaviour. For the second group, he suggested that anger management
courses might possibly be useful, and referred to experience with such measures in the USA.
Ulleberg’s study demonstrates that risk-prone drivers are by no means a homogeneous group. This
may explain why the results from other studies, with their special emphasis on individual
character traits, did not always agree.
55
In a major study carried out in Australia, the Australian Temperament Project (ATP), data was
collected from 2,443 children. The project was launched in 1983 and followed the children’s
psychosocial development from infancy to early adulthood (Vassallo et al., 2007). When the
children reached 19-20 years old, data was also gathered about their experiences of driving and
driving behaviour.
The analyses of these data indicated that it was possible to distinguish a group of young adults
who exhibited particularly risky driver behaviour. 7 % of the young people (of whom 77 % were
men) reported that they always drove in excess of the speed limit (on average by 10 km/h on each
trip, and by even more on some trips), and had also engaged in other forms of risky driver
behaviour during at least one of their last ten trips. These drivers had been involved in
considerably more road traffic accidents than the others who took part in the study.
Data analyses going further back in time showed that this high-risk group were distinct from the
others in several other ways:
Temperament – they were impatient in completing tasks/hyperactivity)
Behavioural problems – they were aggressive and antisocial
Poor social skills – they were less adept at co-operation, were irresponsible and exhibited
little empathy
They had difficulties in adapting themselves to school
They were drawn to the company of other antisocial children/young people
These differences were already clearly demonstrated from as early as 5 years of age, and were
reported by parents, teachers, health workers, and in time by the youngsters themselves.
2.1.6 Relationship between ADHD and driving behaviour
Individuals with the diagnosis ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) have attention
problems, a lack of inhibition and/or hyperactivity, and often experience difficulties in important
aspects of their lives, such as education, social relations and employment. Even though ADHD is
a diagnosis and not a personality trait, we include it here because it can be assumed to reveal itself
in some of the personality traits referred to in the foregoing, such as impulsivity, aggression, and
attention problems. Up until now, little emphasis has been directed towards the influence of
ADHD on driving behaviour, although some studies have been carried out.
An example of such studies was carried out by Fischer et al. (2007), who has studied driverrelated cognitive traits, driver behaviour and the incidence of accidents, speeding fines, revoked
driving licences and illegal driving among young people who have grown up with ADHD. The
researchers found that these young people exhibited poorer impulse control, lower levels of
attentiveness, and poorer driving skills than other young people. They were also more frequently
involved in accidents, practised “safe” road traffic habits to a lesser degree, made more impulsive
errors, and were involved in more accidents and subject to higher levels of licence revocation than
the control group. These results agreed to a large extent with those from earlier studies in the field
(Barkley et al., 1993 and 1996; Murphy and Barkley, 1996 - all of which are cited in Fischer et al.,
2007).
2.2 Brain maturity and risky behaviour
As a result of the development of fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging), research
carried out during the last 10-15 years in the field of neurobiology has made great progress in
terms of our understanding of the maturation of the brain and its problem-solving mechanisms.
Professor Dr. Jay Giedd at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) is a specialist in
child and adolescent psychiatry and the biological basis of behaviour and behavioural
56
development. By using image generation (fMRI) of the anatomy of the brain and its functions, he
has arrived at the following conclusions (Giedd and Blumenthal, 2002):
During puberty, an individual exhibits adult passions, sexual drive, energy and emotions, but
assumes control of these only later. It is not so unusual that teenagers lack discernment and the
ability to master their impulses. The last area within the brain to mature is that part where we
make our assessments in social settings, consider our options, plan for the future and keep the
brain in check. This area, defined by the frontal lobes, only reaches full maturity when the
individual reaches 25 years of age.
A study involving 13 young people was carried out using fMRI at the National Institute of Mental
Health. The subjects were scanned on a routine basis over a 10-year period (Reyna and Farley,
2006a). The results reveal a gradual growth of neurons (the so-called “grey matter”) in the
cerebral cortex, which is only completed in the frontal lobes during the subject’s twenties.
The figure below illustrates the progressive maturity (blue colour) of the cerebral cortex. This
process starts for the most part towards the back of the head with the visual functions, followed by
the development of motor control, and finally progresses forward to the frontal lobes.
Figure 32: Progressive maturation of the cerebral cortex, indicated by the blue colour
If we draw a comparison with car driving, the frontal lobes in many ways represent the role of the
driver (CEO – Chief Executive Officer). It is from the frontal lobes that the brain is governed and
administered in terms of the “planning, implementation and control” of behaviour.
Many automated and self-regulating processes also occur in the frontal lobes, and we depend on
all the reflex actions that relieve the brain and which come to our rescue in many situations.
Professor Valerie F. Reyna at Cornell University in the USA distinguishes between what she
terms “the risky deliberators”, who consciously exhibit risky behaviour, and the “risk reactors”,
whose risky behaviour is impulsive. Her starting point is the maturation process within the brain,
and how this determines the conditions for how reflective and planned the actions of young
people become (Reyna and Farley, 2006b).
The following are typical traits of the “risky deliberators”:
the term encompasses most young people
57
they are greatly governed by their surroundings and “read” traffic situations “one letter at a
time”
before making a decision, they assess and weigh up the risk involved against the
advantages or benefits according to their own logic
however, the assessment is based on their immature perspective, which means that they
are willing to accept the risk when the perceived benefit/reward is greater than any
unwanted consequences.
they chose the risky option and fail to understand that they are approaching “the point of
no return”
The following are typical traits of the “risk reactors”:
they are neither “risk deliberators” nor “risk analysts”
they “end up” in dangerous situations entirely unintentionally
peer group pressure and various other circumstances lead them suddenly into realising that
they are in a dangerous situation and have “lost control”
they are impulsive and allow themselves to be led into and tempted to do things without
thinking them through
These two descriptions of personality type lead us to regard and assess the risky behaviour of
young drivers from several angles. Young people will frequently display a mixture of these
characteristics. The same individual may display variation depending on the situation, his or her
state of mind, and level of competence.
In comparison with experienced and adult drivers, the contrast is clear. Adults plan their driving they foresee how situations develop and anticipate and read situations many steps ahead. They
have developed mental models of what may happen under different situational circumstances, and
make conscious or unconscious distinctions between what is important and what might be an
unsettling departure from the norm. In a study carried out among young people in Vestfold
county, 72 % of the boys and 50 % of the girls said that they were not afraid when drivers in the
age group 18-19 drove in excess of 120 km/h (Moe, 2005).
Adults achieve better brain governance by exploiting its entire functionality. Inter-communication
between the different parts of the brain facilitates optimal processing mechanisms before
decisions are taken. If something unexpected happens, a young person already involved in a
demanding situation lacks the ability to cope with the new circumstances. This can lead to overreactions and situations involving consequent “loss of control”.
The cerebral cortex is the region of the brain where advanced cognitive processes take place that
are essential to the control and inhibition of behaviour. However, the inclination to carry out risky
actions must be seen in the context of a region of the brain called “limbic centre”. This is located
deeper within the brain and constitutes its first-formed parts (figure 33).
58
Figure 33: Schematic diagram of the limbic centre of the brain (Casey, 2006)
Maturation process
The neural structures illustrated by points A to F in figure 33 form what is termed the limbic
centre. This region is key to the regulation of emotions and memory. It is especially important in
relation to the perception of fear, excitement, pleasure, punishment and reward. The limbic centre
matures earlier than the frontal lobes, to the extent that emotional responses play the greater role
in governing behaviour while the capacity to control such responses remains under-developed
(figure 34).
Limbic centre/amygdala
Frontal lobes
youth
Figure 34: Graphical representation of developmental trends for different regions of the brain
(Casey, 2006)
The essential “nub of the problem” is determined by the delay between the maturation and
development of the limbic centre and the frontal lobes (Galvan et al., 2006). This means that as far
as their friends, drugs/alcohol, sex, criminal behaviour, risk-taking, music, thrill-seeking, and risktaking in general are concerned, young people enjoy different things and behave entirely
differently to adults. In the figure above, we have marked this area “youth”. In many ways it
represents both “heaven and hell”.
Beatriz Luna, Professor at the Laboratory of Neurocognitive Development at the University of
Pittsburg, has carried out several studies of brain development in young people by using fMRI.
Among her findings are that:
young people display much higher levels of frontal lobe activity than adults when
attempting to solve the same type of tasks
59
when attempting to solve simple tasks, the levels of frontal lobe activity in young people
are as high as in adults attempting to solve more complex tasks.
young people are more reward-sensitive than adults, and do not react as strongly to
punishment-related signals
the myelinisation of neurons that connect the frontal parts of the brain with other more
centrally-located areas, and which are important to our ability to make judgements, are not
fully mature
She concludes that cognitive capacity and the behaviour control function is still undergoing
development, and remains immature and deficient among young people in comparison with adults
(Luna et al., 2001).
In several studies of risk-taking among young people in which problems related to drugs and/or
alcohol, risky driving behaviour, and failure to wear seat belts were key issues, it is pointed out
that the influence of the peer group is an important factor in relation to behavioural development
(Reyna, 2006 and Steinberg, 2007). This is associated with the cognitive and socio-emotional
maturation processes taking place in the brain during adolescence and early adulthood from the
ages of 12/13 to 24/25. Laurence Steinberg (2007) refers to sexual maturity, combined with close
contact with friends and changes in the brain’s dopamine system. Dopamine is a chemical
substance that influences our perception of pleasure and provides an experience of reward which
is important to our quality of life. Dopamine is secreted in copious amounts when young people
are engaged in exciting activities with their friends. Drugs and alcohol promote an increase in the
secretion of substances such as dopamine.
60
2.3 Socio-demographic characteristics of risk-prone drivers
In addition to certain personality traits, risk-prone drivers also exhibit certain common sociodemographic features, particularly in relation to age and gender. Young men are at greater risk of
being involved in road traffic accidents than women and older adults. This is true both in Norway
and in other countries, e.g., Bjørnskau, 2003, Statens vegvesen, (the Norwegian Public Roads
Administration) 2007, and Peden, 2004).3
In all studies, gender differences are relatively clearly defined in terms of experiences and the
subject’s willingness to participate in risky activities in the future. This also has consequences in
terms of the incidence of death and injury. In a major study carried out by Kruger and Nesse
(2003) into mortality among men and women in the USA, they found that men dominated the
statistics. They had examined mortality rates associated with the 11 most widespread causes of
death and grouped them according to age and gender In the case of car accidents, for every female
killed in the age group 15-24, three of her male peers also lost their lives. During the same period,
the ratio involving non-road traffic-related accidents was 5 to 1. The same ratio was found in
connection with homicide.
The gender difference has been explained by the fact that men, on the one hand, exhibit a
tendency to overestimate their own driving abilities and, on the other, to underestimate risk
(Lonczak et al., 2006). The gender difference has also been explained using socialisation models
by arguing that gender roles encourage men to be aggressive, competitive, active and to take risks,
whereas the opposite is true for women (Simon and Corbett, 1996).
As far as the over-representation of young people in the accident statistics is concerned, this
phenomenon has given rise to a considerable amount of research during the last 20 years. The
most common explanation for the vulnerability of young people in accident situations has been
their poor driving skills resulting from inadequate practice. However, in the foregoing we
explained how several researchers had found that brain development progresses more slowly that
was previously supposed, to the extent that young people have not yet developed sufficient
cognitive capacity and control over their own behaviour. To some extent in agreement with these
findings, other authorities have claimed that an important cause of accidents among young people
is that they have not developed the ability to evaluate risk and to comprehend the entirety of an
accident situation (Deery 1999).
However, several studies have concluded purely and simply that young people have a greater need
of excitement than adults, and therefore accept higher levels of risk (Arnett, 1994; Zuckerman et
al., 1978, cited in Arnett, 1996). Young people’s accident-proneness can thus be attributed to a
lack of experience, an under-developed cognitive capacity, or conscious risk-taking behaviour - or
a combination of these factors.
In the second half of the 1980s, and based on comprehensive studies carried out among young
people, a description was developed of factors which, both solely and in combination, can provide
an explanation for much of the behaviour of young drivers. These factors included personality
traits, brain maturity and problem behaviour, and are thus recounted in various parts of this
literature study. This collation of factors has been termed “young drivers’ syndrome” (Moe,
1984).
There are also sociological factors other than age and gender which can be regarded as being
common to risk-prone drivers. Socio-economic status is a well-recognised factor affecting risky
3
However, according to calculations carried out by Bjørnskaus, women in the age group 18-19 are at higher risk of
being injured or killed per kilometre driven than their male peers. His claim is based mainly on the differences
between male and female resilience levels, in that men are more likely to emerge uninjured from the accidents in
which they are involved.
61
behaviour in relation to all types of accidents (Peden, 2004, p. 46). Several studies have concluded
that drivers who display risky behaviour are more frequently poor performers in the classroom,
have a limited education, and were brought up in more difficult home environments than other
drivers.
In a study carried out in Sweden of young drivers who were involved in traffic accidents, and
which resulted in injury, Murray (1998) found that the majority of drivers involved had parents
who worked in unskilled manual jobs, or who were unemployed. The performance of these
drivers at school was also below the normal standard for their age cohort, and the majority had
completed either mandatory schooling only or a sixth-form occupational training course.
In another Swedish study, Engström et al. (2002) investigated incidents involving adolescents
under 20 years of age in order to see if their risk of injury was related to their parents’
occupations. The injuries were grouped into four causal categories; falls, road traffic accidents,
violence, and self-inflicted injury. The children were grouped into age cohorts. They found that
socio-economic status was a particularly important factor as far as road traffic accidents among 15
to 19-year olds were concerned, but became less important with decreasing age.
In a study carried out in New Zealand, Whitlock et al. (2003) found that low socio-economic
status as expressed in terms of occupation and level of education was statistically linked to
incidence of injury among car drivers. According to the researchers, an explanation for this may
be that drivers with these backgrounds were less likely to wear a seat belt, more likely to drive
over the alcohol limit, and more frequently drove older cars which were poorly equipped in terms
of built-in safety devices.
Baum (1999) has made an aggregated study of the relationship between socio-economic status
and risk-prone drivers. Different districts of Brisbane in Australia were classified according to
several variables linked to socio-economic factors. These were then compared with the postcodes
of drivers apprehended for driving over the alcohol limit. He found that the proportion of those
who had been driving over the alcohol limit exhibited a positive correlation with those districts
dominated by high levels of unemployment or low-status occupations, and by higher proportions
of people living in council housing.
In the ATP study described above, no significant differences in family situation (parents’ marital,
occupational or financial status) were found at any time between the high-risk group and the other
participants in the study. The same applied as regards their experiences in terms of driving
instruction and their own life circumstances, i.e. self-reported occupation, level of education,
housing conditions (Vassallo, 2007).
Sletten (2007) has revealed that the socio-economic grouping to which an individual belongs is
not necessarily the cause of various problem behaviours, as much research would indicate, but
that the degree of control and emotional attachment on the part of the parents is key. In an
analysis of data derived from the “Ung i Norge 2002” (Youth in Norway 2002)4 survey, she found
that the difference in problem behavioural trends among young people from poorer and well-off
families disappeared when she made a correction for the level of control and support which the
young people reported that they had received from their parents. This result highlights the
importance of the role of the parents in the social development of adolescents and young people.
Ethnicity represents a further socio-demographic dimension which might be regarded as having an
influence on road traffic-related risk. Road traffic-related risk varies widely from country to
country, and it is therefore possible that individuals with foreign cultural backgrounds may have
different attitudes to road traffic safety than ethnic Norwegians. A Swedish study carried out by
4
The “Youth in Norway 2002” survey was carried out by NOVA (the Norwegian Social Research Institute).
Approximately 12,000 students from 73 secondary and advanced secondary schools from throughout Norway
participated in the survey.
62
the National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI) states that male drivers born in foreign
countries are twice at risk of being involved in a road traffic accident than their ethnic Swedish
counterparts. The corresponding figure for foreign-born women is 70 % higher than among those
born in Sweden (Gustafsson and Falkmer, 2006). Immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Syria
stood out as being particularly risk-prone.
A similar study has recently been carried out in Norway (Nordbakke and Assum, 2008). It
revealed that immigrants from non-Western countries holding Norwegian driving licences were at
a higher risk of being involved in an accident than Norwegian-born holders of Norwegian
licences. This applied in particular to male immigrants from Middle Eastern and African
countries, who exhibited greater than twice the risk of being involved in an accident than their
Norwegian-born counterparts.
2.4 Risk-prone drivers and criminal behaviour in other settings
If personality traits and social problems exert an influence on driver behaviour, it is natural that
these underlying factors also result in problem behaviour in other settings, such as criminality and
drug or alcohol dependency. We will describe in the following the results obtained in connection
with correlations obtained between risky driver behaviour and behavioural problems/criminal
behaviour in other settings.
To date, the US Department of Justice has published two reports (in 1999 and 2002) in which the
authors describe the characteristics associated with drivers apprehended by the police (Smith et
al., 2002 and 2006). The last survey, carried out in 2002, included data from almost 17 million
drivers, or approximately 9 % of all drivers of motorised vehicles in the USA. Young, male
drivers were over-represented among those who were apprehended. Almost 840,000 of those
stopped were also searched, and in 10 % of cases, evidence of some form of criminal behaviour
such as the possession of illegal weapons or narcotic substances came to light. More detailed data
are not published.
In a study of 80 inmates at the Tunga county prison facility in Trondheim, 46 % of respondents
stated that they had committed a road traffic offence (Rasmussen et al., 1999). The number of
these inmates who were also convicted for other offences was not published. Many of the inmates
reported that they had been in conflict with the police when they were quite young – some since
before they were 11 years old. A large proportion also reported that they had experienced
difficulties at school, and the researchers responsible for the study believe that neuro-psychiatric
disturbances experienced early in life represent a characteristic shared by many criminals.
These findings indicate that many inmates in Norwegian prisons have also committed road traffic
offences, and that behavioural problems early in their lives are related to criminal behaviour later
in life, including that related to road traffic.
In 1996, Rose (2000) carried out a study in England and Wales of more than 40,000 convicted
criminals. In the main, their offences included crimes of violence, theft, vandalism, drug-related
crime and serious road traffic offences. The survey was conducted to investigate the relationship
between serious road traffic offences and other forms of criminal behaviour. He found that
between 12 and 15 % of those convicted of serious road traffic offences as their principal
indictment also had concurrent convictions for other, non-road traffic-related offences.
About half of those convicted for dangerous driving had previous convictions for other forms of
crime. Approximately 25 % committed a new breach within one year. The corresponding figures
for unqualified drivers (those who had no entitlement to drive a vehicle) were 78 % (37 % were
re-convicted within one year), and 40 % for those convicted for driving over the alcohol limit (12
% of whom re-offended within one year).
63
Although those convicted of driving over the alcohol limit exhibited the lowest number of
previous convictions, the incidence of previous convictions in this group was still twice as great as
that among the population as a whole.
Rose also studied the proportion of road traffic offenders with previous convictions, grouped
according to age. Figure 30 illustrates his results.
Rose (2000):
The proportions of road traffic offenders with previous criminal
convictions, grouped according to age
Dangerous drivers
Drink drivers
Unqualified drivers
100 %
90 %
83 %
78 %
80 %
73 %
65 %
70 %
57 %
60 %
50 %
50 %
47 %
48 %
45 %
38 %
40 %
30 %
81 %
23 %
20 %
10 %
0%
10-20 yrs
21-25 yrs
26-32 yrs
33 and over
Figure 35: The proportions of road traffic offenders with previous criminal convictions, grouped
according to age (Rose, 2000)
Rose’s figure displays divergent trends for the three groups of road traffic offenders. We observe
that the proportions of dangerous drivers and those who have driven over the alcohol limit (“drink
drivers”) increase with age up until 33 years of age, after which the figures decrease a little. For
unqualified drivers, the trend is a little different. Here it is offenders in the 21-25 age group that
have the highest number of previous convictions, with those in the 26-32 group in second place.
Those with the most previous criminal convictions among the “dangerous drivers” are found in
the 26-32 age group.
In a further study from the UK, Broughton (2007) studied the relationship between the number of
road traffic-related offences and other forms of criminal behaviour. He found a pronounced
correlation. Among the 2.5 % of male drivers who had committed some form of criminal act, 31
% had committed a serious road traffic-related offence. For women, the correlation was even
more pronounced, and the equivalent figures were 0.5 and 16 %, respectively. Broughton also
found that men who had previously committed other forms of criminal offence were frequently
also convicted for driving without a licence. The most pronounced correlation was between the
incidence of car theft and road traffic-related offences. An individual convicted of car theft on two
occasions also committed on average 25 times more serious road traffic-related offences than a
person with no convictions for car theft. Corresponding figures for other forms of theft were 10
times, with still lower figures for other forms of criminal offence.
In the foregoing we referred to a study carried out under the auspices of the Australian time series
survey (ATP). In another study based on this survey, the same authors examined the relationship
between risky driver behaviour and problems encountered by young adults in other settings, such
64
as use of tobacco, alcohol and marijuana (other narcotic substances were not considered because
the figures were too small), antisocial behaviour, early sexual debut rates, depression and anxiety
(Vassallo et al., 2008). The most pronounced correlation emerged between driver behaviour and
antisocial behaviour and/or the use of marijuana (including past use). Several of those in the highrisk group drank alcohol and/or smoked more than the other drivers in the survey. The incidences
of an early sexual debut, anxiety and/or depression were not statistically significant.
A further Australian study (Palk and Davey, 2007) confirms that there are associations between
serious road traffic offences and other forms of criminal behaviour (notably violent crime). In the
main, road traffic-related offences and acts of violent crime occurred at the same time of day and
at the same locations (at night during the weekends and in the vicinity of licensed premises).
Young men were the principal offenders. Alcohol played a significant role in these crimes.
An example of a situation in which driver behaviour can often become extremely risky is when a
driver is fleeing from the police. As part of a project commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of
Justice and Police, and carried out by SINTEF and the Norwegian Police College Research Unit, a
detailed analysis was conducted of 44 such pursuits which all resulted in either injury or a death.
Data was collected as to the reasons for starting the pursuit and how it was carried out.
The main findings of the study included the fact that almost half of the pursuits had lasted
between approximately 1 and 5 minutes. Car theft was the most common crime associated with
the pursuit, and half of the fleeing drivers were heavily under the influence of alcohol and/or
drugs. At times, the speeds attained were very high and the fleeing drivers took great risks in
order to get away. The police patrols involved in these cases chose not to break off the pursuit,
and for periods also engaged in high-risk driving (Moe and Thomassen, 2000). The fleeing drivers
reported the following reasons for their behaviour:
some of the fleeing drivers experienced an “adrenalin kick” and took extreme risks
two fleeing drivers panicked - they had stolen cars before and would be “in trouble” if they
were apprehended
some were driving in a state of abstinence and were afraid of being incarcerated in the
security cells
another had just been released and did not want to be apprehended
two drivers were intent on committing suicide and did not want to be stopped
one had damaged a police car and had almost run down a policeman
one hated the police and had deliberately driven into a police car
several had substantial criminal records
It is clear that the fleeing drivers had strong motives for escaping from the police. Many were also
in an excited state as a result of being under the influence, and were unwilling to stop and allow
themselves to be apprehended. Even if the fleeing drivers are not under the influence of alcohol or
drugs, they are highly motivated to get away. They drive into police cars and attempt to crash
through barriers in order to avoid being apprehended. The majority of the fleeing drivers are
young people. The youngest in the survey was 16 years old.
2.5 When most risky driver behaviour takes place
In order to be able to prevent risky driver behaviour, it is useful to know when and where driving
of this kind principally takes place. According to Bjørnskau (2003) the risk of being injured in a
car (per vehicle kilometre) is clearly greatest on Friday and Saturday nights. He believes that this
is attributed to the fact that the most risky driver behaviour among young people, whether under
the influence of alcohol or not, occurs at these times. The risk of incurring injury in a car during
the rest of the week is also greatest at night time. The least risk of incurring injury occurs during
65
the early and late morning. These observations also correspond with the results of the fatal
accident analysis presented in Part 1 of this study.
2.6 Why drive the car?
Risky driver behaviour usually involves aims other than those associated with “normal” driving.
In a study carried out among young people in the Norwegian counties of Buskerud and Aust- and
Vest-Agder, the respondents were asked how often they drove their cars, for how long, and about
the purpose of their trips (Moe 2003). Table 5 shows the results of their responses as they relate to
the young people’s attitudes towards a willingness to accept risk. Both passengers and drivers
were included.
Table 5: Young people’s willingness to accept risk as it relates to the purpose of driving (Moe,
2003)
Purpose of trip
Risk willing drivers
Risk averse drivers
Drive around without clear 30 – 35 %
purpose for 2-3 hours or more
15 – 20 %
Sit in the car and chat/listen to 20 – 25 %
music for 2-3 hours or more
15 – 20 %
We observe from table 5 that those most willing to accept risk also spend more time out on the
roads and in the car than those who are more risk averse. In response to questions about how often
they did this, the answers are presented in table 6.
Table 6: Risk willingness among young people as it relates to how frequently they drive (Moe,
2003).
Purpose of trip
Risk willing drivers
Risk averse drivers
(3-5 days a week/every day)
(3-5 days a week/every day)
Drive around without clear 20 – 25 %
purpose for 2-3 hours or more
8 – 10 %
Sit in the car and chat/listen to 25 – 30 %
music for 2-3 hours or more
10 – 15 %
Table 6 shows that the most risk willing drivers more frequently spend more of their free time in
and around their cars than the more risk averse.
2.7 The internet, YouTube and risky behaviour
We must mention the phenomenon of YouTube in connection with risky driver behaviour. What
has now become the most popular online video website was launched in February 2005. It is
called the YouTube Community (www.youtube.com/t/fact_sheet), and is a website where it is
possible easily to up- and download videos of all forms of activity.. YouTube is linked to the
search engine Google.
Anyone can take part in the YouTube Community simply by watching videos, sharing them with
others or sending in comments. Millions of videos have been loaded onto the site, and about ten
66
hours of video material is uploaded every 60 seconds. YouTube has just as many female
enthusiasts as it has male. It is possible to view videos related to any subject that the viewer finds
of interest by selecting from a list of topics. The topics range from pure entertainment and risky
behaviour to scientific and educational themes.
Young people are active users of YouTube and many upload videos of risky behaviour that they
themselves have filmed, including examples of high-speed driving. This is one way they have of
showing the outside world how daring they can be and the reckless things that they have done. It
is common for contests to develop where participants can compete to outdo each other, both in
terms of the originality, dramatic effect and riskiness of their reckless antics.
In 2006 Time Magazine proclaimed YouTube as the most important innovation of the year. The
magazine argued that YouTube had revolutionised history in three different ways
(www.adressa.no/digital, 2008):
1. Video production and distribution.
By creating software routines which allowed its users to upload home-made videos, the
developers had created a community in which anyone could view anything regardless of the
browser and computer hardware available to them.
2. The social revolution
YouTube has established a website where people can create, use and share their creative work
with each other, without any limits, checks or restrictions.
3. The cultural revolution
YouTube has allowed its users to gain control of news dissemination. The users wanted
uncensored reports of what was going on in the world. Not sanitised media productions. Anyone
can become a star overnight. Film yourself - whatever you are doing - and put it out on YouTube.
67
PART III: CONCLUSIONS AND ACTION
3 CONCLUSION – “YOUNG DRIVERS’ SYNDROME”
During the last 20-25 years, road traffic safety tasks have been performed under the auspices of
many different organisations. Many agencies have made a contribution, acting both on their own
account and in collaboration with the police, the Norwegian Public Roads Administration or
others.
This work has most probably helped towards the gradual reduction in road traffic-related risks.
There are also many other social factors that influence road traffic safety and the general attitude
of society as a whole to safety issues. However, the risk observed among some groups, such as
young people, is still very high. In the light of Norway’s zero vision, the challenges before us
remain many and great. We have no workable solutions which will radically change the current
situation overnight. First and foremost, we must see if we can further intensify and strengthen
some of the measures that we already have, and then see if there are any new approaches which
might be useful.
Recent knowledge about young people’s development leads to a better understanding of their
behaviour, both as drivers and passengers. Lack of experience, combined with the immaturity of
their neural systems, make it difficult for them to control their intense emotional impulses. It is
also important to place more strategic emphasis not only on the behaviour of young drivers, but
also of young passengers.
In the NMPS’s review of fatal accidents, described in Part 1 of this report, it was found that young
drivers tend to exhibit greater levels of blameworthy behaviour than older drivers, and that
blameworthy drivers have more previous criminal convictions, often for a range of offences, than
non-blameworthy drivers.
The NMPS study also revealed that high speed and the influence of drugs and/or alcohol represent
the most important factor categories associated with blameworthy behaviour, and that
MC/mopeds are over-represented as a proportion of the total number of vehicles on the road in
terms of their involvement in accidents.
Most accidents involving blameworthy behaviour occur during the spring and summer, whereas
accidents involving non-blameworthy behaviour are generally more evenly distributed throughout
the year. Moreover, accidents involving blameworthy behaviour occur less often on weekdays and
more often during the weekends than those involving non-blameworthy behaviour. They also
exhibit greater variation in frequency over the 24-hour day, with well-defined peaks in the
evenings and at night time.
The study also shows that many of the victims who have lost their lives in road traffic accidents
have accepted a certain level of risk. All in all we observe that many perpetrators and victims
could have been saved if greater care had been taken by drivers, passengers and pedestrians. We
also observe that people are killed in road traffic accidents every year whose behaviour is entirely
blameless.
Based on the research that has been carried out both in Norway and overseas, and which has been
reviewed in the literature study in part 2 of this report, SINTEF has constructed a matrix
encompassing the characteristics based on what has previously been described as “young drivers’
syndrome” (Moe, 1984).
All of these characteristics are important, but when they occur in combination risky driver
tendencies become reinforced. We have carried out a general assessment of the significance of
these characteristics. They are ranked according to a three-point scale: “Minor significance”,
“Major significance” and “Very major significance” (see table 7).
68
Table 7: ”Young drivers’ syndrome”. Characteristics of drivers and their significance in terms of
risky driver behaviour.
Risk factor
“Inherent model” or a mentality typified
by genetically-determined risk willingness
“Sensation seeking”, thrill-seeking,
fascination, risk willingness
Impulsiveness; lack of impulse control
High confidence in own driving abilities
Impress others - self-assertion
Failure to wear a seat belt
Casual driving without clear purpose,
during evenings, at night and weekends
Social pressure, real and imagined
Use of drugs and/or alcohol and
medication, both in general and while
driving
Aggression and anger management
problems
Irresponsibility/normlessness
Criminal behaviour
Lack of empathy/compassion
Little experience as drivers
Immaturity:
Neurobiology, development which results
in inadequate ability to plan, control stress
and appreciate consequences
Sexual maturity:
Socio-emotional development
Minor
significance
Major
significance
Very major
significanace
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
We emphasise that all the risk factors listed in this table are important, including those which are
not assigned “major” or “very major” significance. Combinations of different factors indicate an
increased likelihood of the incidence of risky driver behaviour.
4 ACTION
This study demonstrates that young people are over-represented in fatal road traffic accidents,
both in relation to the population as a whole, and to the amount of motoring they do. It shows that
this age group is very vulnerable in road traffic situations and demands additional attention from
the police and other organisations with whom the police work. The study also demonstrates that
individuals who are listed in the police convictions register are over-represented in fatal road
traffic accidents as a proportion of the general population. The measures taken must therefore
address these specified target groups.
4.1 Intelligence-driven police work on the roads
The collection and processing of data for strategic and tactical purposes are key to all police work.
At its headquarters, the NMPS employs an intelligence coordinator and analysts whose task it is to
69
ensure that updated knowledge regarding high risk groups is communicated to the NMPS’s
operative units. This ensures that the patrols are on the roads at the times of the day when and at
locations where the likelihood of encountering the target groups in question is greatest.
In order to improve internal and external channels for the communication of relevant information,
we have also established dedicated intelligence patrols in all NMPS operative districts. The
patrols are equipped with online data systems with access to tools such as Indicia, the police
intelligence database. The aim of the patrols is also to reinforce collaboration between the NMPS
and the local constabularies in tackling risk-seeking young people and criminals in general.
The study has demonstrated that it is important to focus on improving the quality of accidentrelated data. In this context, the document “Rapport om vegtrafikkuhell” (“The road traffic
accident report”, in Norwegian) forms the basis of accident registration. In this study, it was
difficult to obtain data, particularly on the extent of injuries, use of seat belts, and use of drugs
and/or alcohol, from the aforementioned report. In the event of fatal accidents, blood samples
should be taken from the driver in order to ascertain whether drugs and/or alcohol are present.
Moreover, it is important for the police to utilise the knowledge they have regarding the
relationship between road traffic safety work and the combating of criminal activity on the roads,
and to work together with other police institutions and organisations such as the Norwegian Public
Roads Administration and “Trygg Trafikk” (“The Norwegian Council for Road Safety”).
4.2 Police surveillance and control measures
The incentive, capacity, ability and willingness of any given individual to behave in a controlled
and safe manner depend on the preventive and control measures employed by the police.
4.2.1 Control and surveillance of risk-seeking young people and individuals exhibiting
criminal behaviour.
NMPS will continue in its efforts to tackle drivers who exhibit aggressive and dangerous
behaviour in road traffic situations. In this context, it is important to consolidate the collaboration
between the local constabularies and NMPS. The police must make the most of the knowledge
they have regarding the relationship between road traffic safety work and traffic-related crimecombating measures in order to achieve more effective control procedures to eliminate these
drivers. The police will take responsibility for making the control procedures and surveillance of
risk-seeking young people more effective.
4.2.2 Use of technology - ANPR
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) represents an effective tool in assisting the police
to control individuals exhibiting criminal behaviour on the roads. This technology enables
distinctive features and missing vehicles to be identified. As part of a project commissioned by the
Norwegian Police Directorate, NMPS has launched a process for the procurement of such
equipment, and is planning to put it into operation in 2010.
4.2.3 Intensify controls of drugs and/or alcohol use
Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol leads to an increased risk of road traffic
accidents. It not only increases the risk of accidents occurring to the drivers, but also to their
passengers and other innocent road users. This study confirms that the use of drugs and/or
alcohol, either alone or in combination with speeding, was either a contributory or the main cause
of 47 % of the fatal accidents involving blameworthy behaviour (219), and 24 % of all of the 425
fatal accidents during the years 2004-2005.
70
In order to make the gathering of evidence from drink drivers more effective, the police have
entered into an agreement to procure mobile evidence gathering systems. This will make it
possible to speed up the processing of cases, and will enable more drink drivers with low levels of
blood alcohol to be apprehended. NMPS will put the mobile evidence gathering system into
operation in order to reinforce its efforts to tackle those driving under the influence of drugs
and/or alcohol.
4.3 Character assessment and sobriety
Prior to the acquisition of a driving licence by individuals in the target group, the police and
prosecuting authorities ought to carry out a more thorough assessment to ensure that those due to
be issued with a driving licence have no previous or current record of drink-related behaviour and
that no other censure exists against their character, cf. Section 24 of the Norwegian Road Traffic
Act. A breach of the Act relating to Medicinal Products must be more strictly weighed against the
requirement related to previous and current drink-related behaviour and character, cf. Section 24,
subsection 4, of the Road Traffic Act.
The police and prosecuting authorities must prosecute more cases in which they demand driver
disqualification pursuant to Section 34, subsection 5, of the Road Traffic Act (the driver’s
previous and current drink-related behaviour and character).
It is important that the police and prosecuting authorities apply the provision in Section 36 of the
Road Traffic Act (Prohibition of the use of vehicles, seizure of registration plates and vehicle
registration) in order to restrict the general mobility of young people, dangerous drivers and
criminals, and their access to the road network.
NMPS has commenced the work to collate and edit case law in this field in a booklet.
4.4 Probationary driving entitlement
4.4.1 Driver disqualification in the event of road traffic contraventions
Under the current system the thresholds for disqualification as a result of a speeding offence for a
driver who is in possession of a probationary driving licence are identical to those for a driver
holding a permanent licence. An assessment ought to be made of lowering the threshold for
disqualification for this category of driver, as stipulated in the Regulations governing
disqualification from driving a motor vehicle. This is argued on the same basis as for the penalty
points system, by which young drivers during their probationary period have a lower points
threshold before they lose their driving entitlements for repeated speeding offences. If, in the
event of serious speeding offences, no distinction is made between experienced and probationary
drivers, inconsistencies will arise in the sanctions system for such offences.
NMPS also supports the proposal to make alterations in road traffic practice, in that a driver
holding a probationary licence ought to lose his/her entitlement to drive if apprehended with low
levels of blood alcohol (0.2 - 0.4 ‰), cf .the report on “Driving under the influence of drugs other
than alcohol”, published by the Ministry of Transport (Samferdselsdepartementet, 2009a).
This distinction between experienced and inexperienced drivers in the sanctions system both for
speeding offences and for driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol has been
implemented in other European countries.
4.4.2 Measures following driver disqualification
Each year, the police make formal complaints against about 700 drivers of every age within the 18
to 21 category for speeding offences and driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
Many of these drivers hold probationary licences, and lose their entitlement to drive for a given
71
period. This is a small, but highly risk-prone group, and more attention ought to be paid to them
during the probationary period with the aim of changing their driver behaviour.
In its document “Tiltaksplan mot ungdomsulykker” (“Measures to prevent accidents involving
young people”), NMPS proposed measures that can be taken following driver disqualification in
cases where the re-taking of the standard theory examination is inappropriate if the aim is to
attempt to promote the development of the “cognitive control functions” among the target group.
The proposal involves ensuring that in order to qualify to take a new driving test, individuals who
have lost their entitlement to drive during the probationary period must complete a separate
module focusing on risk awareness. NMPS envisage a module comprising 15 – 20 hours of group
tuition involving a combination of dialogue and contemplation of the risks which result from
dangerous driver behaviour. A similar system has been introduced in Iceland, and experience to
date appears to be very positive.
4.4.3 Penalty point system
An assessment should be made in relation to the Regulations governing the penalty point system
to introduce stricter requirements for drivers during their probationary period. The total points
threshold which triggers driver disqualification should be lowered and, as appropriate, offences
committed during the probationary period should be assigned more points. In the recommendation
stated in the document “Revidering av prikkbelastningsordningen” (“Revision of the penalty point
system”) published by the Ministry of Transport (Samferdselsdepartementet, 2009b), it is stated
that it will be appropriate to use the system as a measure designed to reduce accidents among this
group of drivers. The working group which has prepared this recommendation does not find it
appropriate to make distinctions based on a driver’s age when he/she was first issued with a
driving licence, but that a distinction should be made between probationary and non-probationary
drivers in relation to the issue particularly of penalty points in the event of a contravention. The
working group proposes that drivers holding probationary licences should be given twice the
number of points on contravention of provisions that are incorporated into the system.
4.4.4 Control measures during the probationary licence period (use of P/L plates)
On initial issue of a Class B driving licence, a probationary period of two years must be stipulated
and noted on the licence. Persons who lose their entitlement to drive during the probationary
period as a result of a breach of road traffic conduct regulations must re-take the driving test in
full. However, to date there has been no visible indication to other drivers that a driver is
currently serving his/her probationary period and is therefore relatively inexperienced.
Consideration must be given to the introduction of requirements for the marking of vehicles
driven by novice drivers. During the first six months after having passed his/her driving test, the
young driver in question must continue to carry a marking on the car, in the form of a green “L”
plate. This system is already practised in Australia and the UK.
A system such as this will help to ensure that the novice driver regards him/herself to a greater
degree as a person who may have passed the test, but who nevertheless remains inexperienced. A
passed driving test must be regarded as a gateway to independent self-development as a driver,
and not as a confirmation that the person in question is fully experienced.
NMPS believes that a system involving the use of green “L” plates should for the most part only
apply during the first six months after the driving test has been taken. The Norwegian Institute of
Transport Economics (TØI) has reported that young drivers are at the greatest risk of being
involved in an accident immediately after they have taken their driving test. Subsequently, the risk
is reduced by 50 per cent during the first 9 months after the test (Sagberg and Bjørnskau, 2003).
An assessment should also be made as to whether this system should only apply to persons
younger than 25 years of age, since the young drivers exposed to the highest risk of being
72
involved in accidents are found in the 18-24 age group. A system such as this will be less
stigmatising for the drivers concerned, and will be specifically “targeted” both at the intended
group and the time of day when the risk of being involved in an accident is greatest.
4.5 Other rule changes
Zero-tolerance principle for substances other than alcohol, and rapid (saliva) tests for
narcotic drugs
Currently, the police do not have the same ability to test drivers to see if they are under the
influence of substances other than alcohol. A “zero-tolerance principle” must be incorporated into
the Road Traffic Act (equivalent to the 0.2 ‰ limit for alcohol) for those substances which are
listed in the narcotic drugs register (accompanying Regulations issued pursuant to the Act relating
to Medicinal Products), together with fixed substance influence thresholds for the most relevant
substances such as cannabis and amphetamines. In order to enforce such a rule change, the police
must be given the authority to check drivers without “reasonable grounds for suspicion” for
substances other than alcohol by means of rapid (saliva) tests for the detection of narcotic drugs.
Furthermore, we refer to the report “Kjøring under påvirkning av andre rusmidler enn alkohol”
(“Driving under the influence of substances other than alcohol”), published by the Ministry of
Transport (Samferdselsdepartementet, 2009a).
NMPS has made a proposal that the Police Directorate procure rapid (saliva) tests for narcotic
drugs, so that these can be used as soon as the anticipated amendments to the Road Traffic Act
come into force.
4.6 Working with the media
NMPS regard the media both as an important partner and an essential contributor to the
dissemination of information about road traffic safety activities. In 2008 the NMPS got 6559
mentions in the various electronic media outlets.
It is important to have the results of this analysis communicated as accurately as possible via the
media to the general public, decision-makers, and to other organisations with an active role in
road traffic safety work, in order to increase focus on driver responsibility and dangerous driver
behaviour. For this reason, NMPS will further intensify its efforts to provide information via its
own website, and to produce analytical studies, statistics and commentary which the media can
use to compile sound and informative articles about road traffic safety.
Our challenge is to get a message across to the most risk-willing or accident-prone road users
about the dangers inherent in their dangerous behaviour.
We can reach various different groups with a targeted message via special interest organisations
and technical periodicals. An example of a successful project of this type is our collaboration with
the Norwegian Motorcycle Union (NMCU) regarding the issue of the booklet “Full Kontroll –
Godt Tenkt” (“Complete Control, Well-Judged”, in Norwegian).
The NMPS is currently considering the use of social media channels such as Facebook as part of
its work to reach youth groups interested in motoring.
LITTERATUR
Arnett, J. J. (1996): Sensation seeking, aggressiveness, and adolescent reckless behaviour. In
Personal and Individual Differences 20: 693-702
73
Arthur, W. and W. G. Graziano (1996): The Five-Factor Model, Conscientiousness, and Driving
Accident Involvement. In Journal of Personality 64(3): 593-618
Atkinson, J. W. (1966): Motivational Determinants of Risk Taking Behavior. Pages 11-29 in A
theory of achievement motivation. Wiley, New York.
Baum, S. (1999): An aggregate analysis of the socioeconomic correlates of drink driving
offenders. In Accident Analysis and Prevention 31: 213-220
Berg, H. Y. and N. P. Gregersen (1993): Samband mellan unga bilbøreres livsstil och deras
olycksrisk i trafiken. (“Correlation between young drivers’ lifestyles and their risk of involvement
in road traffic accidents”, in Swedish), VTI-report 374-1993 S-581 01. Linkøping, Sweden.
Bjørnskau, T. (2003): Risiko i trafikken 2001-2002 (“Risks in traffic 2001-2002”, in Norwegian)
TØI report 694/2003.
Blankenstein, K. R., E. Darte and P. Donaldson (1976): A further correlation of sensation seeking:
Achieving tendency. In Perceptual and Motor Skills 42: 1251-1255
Bone, R. R., L. W. Cowling and M. Choban (1974): Seeking and volunteering for experiments.
Unpublished.
Breivik, G. (1986): De dristige menns og kvinners psykologi. (“The psychology of daring men and
women”) Norwegian Medical Association, nos. 34-35-36; 106: 2955-2956
Broughton, J. (2006): The correlation between motoring and other types of offence. In Accident
Analysis and Prevention 39: 274-283
Casey, B. J. (2006): Sackler Institute for Psychobiological Development. Weill Medical College
of Cornell University.
Cellar, D.F., Z.C. Nelson and C.M. Yorke (2000): The five-factor model and driving behaviour:
personality and involvement in vehicular accidents. In Psychological Reports 86(2): 454-456
Dahlen, E. R., R. C. Martin, K. Ragan, and M. M. Kuhlman (2005): Driving anger, sensation
seeking, impulsiveness, and boredom proneness in the prediction of unsafe driving. In Accident
Analysis and Prevention 37: 341-348
Dahlen, E. R. and R. P. White (2006): The Big Five factors, sensation seeking, and driving anger
in the prediction of unsafe driving. In Personality and Individual Differences 41: 903-915
Deery, H. (1999): Hazard and Risk Perception among Young Novice Drivers. In Journal of Safety
Research 30: 225-236
Deffenbacher, J. L., R. S. Lynch, E. R. Oetting and D. A. Yingling (2001): Driving anger:
correlates and a test of state-trait theory. In Personality and Individual Differences 31: 1321-1351
Deffenbacher, J. L., D. M. Deffenbacher, R. S. Lynch and T. L. Richards (2003): Anger,
aggression, and risky behaviour: a comparison of high and low anger drivers. In Behavior
Research and Therapy 41: 701-718
Engström, K., F. Diderichsen and L. Laflamme (2002): Socioeconomic differences in injury risks
in childhood and adolescence: A nation-wide study of intentional and unintentional injuries in
Sweden. In Injury Prevention 8: 137-142
Fischer, M., R. A Barkley, L. Smallish and K. Fletcher (2007): Hyperactive children as young
adults: Driving abilities, safe driving behaviour, and adverse driving outcomes. In Accident
Analysis and Prevention 39: 94-105
Galvan, A., T. A. Hare, C.E. Parra, J. Penn, H. Voss, G. Glover and B. J. Casey (2006): Earlier
development in the accumbens relative to orbitofrontalcortex might underlie risk-taking behavior
in adolescents. In The Journal of Neuroscience 26: 6885-6892
74
Giedd, J. and J. Blumenthal (2002): Brain development during childhood and adolescence. A
longitudinal fMRI study. In Nature Neuroscience 10: 861-863
Glendon, A. I., S. Clarke and E. McKenna (2006): Personality and risk liability. Chap. 5 in
Glendon et al.: Human Safety and Risk Management, CRC Press.
Gustafsson, S. and T. Falkmer (2006): The traffic safety situation among foreign born in Sweden
– based on eight road user population zones. Report 547A, VTI.
Hamer, D. and Copeland, P (1999): Living with Our Genes. The groundbreaking book about the
science and personality, behavior and genetic destiny. First Anchor Books Edition, March 1999,
New York.
Iversen, H. and T. Rundmo (2002): Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among
Norwegian drivers. In Personality and Individual Differences 33: 1251-1263
Jeffery, R. W. (1989): Risk behaviours and health. Contrasting individual and population
perspectives. In American Psychologist 44: 1194-1202
Jonah, B. A. (1997): Sensation seeking and risky driving: A review and synthesis of the literature.
In Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 651-665
King, Y. and D. Parker (2008): Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. In Revue
européenne de psychologie appliqué 58: 43-49
Krogen, T. and T. Romundstad (1993): Spenningssøkere, personlighetsfaktorer og trafikkulykker.
(“Thrill-seekers, personality factors and road traffic accidents”, in Norwegian). Thesis in
Psychology. Institute of Psychology, University of Trondheim.
Kruger J, D. and Nesse M. R. (2003): Sexual selection and the Male:Female Mortality Ratio.
Evolutionary Psychology 2: 66-85, Human Nature Review 2004
Lev, D., E. Hershkovitz, and E. Yechiam (1991): Decision making and personality in traffic
offenders: A study of Israeli drivers. In Accident Analysis and Prevention 40: 223-230
Lonczak, H. S., C. Neighbors and D. M. Donovan (2006): Predicting risky and angry driving as a
function of gender. In Accident Analysis and Prevention 39: 536-545
Luna, B., K. R. Thulborn, D. P. Munoz, E. P. Merriam, K. E. Garver, N. J. Keshavan, C. R.
Genovese, W. F. Eddy and J. A. Sweeney (2001): Maturation of widely distributed brain function
subserves cognitive development. In NeuroImage 13: 786-793
Mallet, P. and E. Vignoli (2007): Intensity seeking and novelty seeking: Their relationship to
adolescent risk behavior and occupational interests. In Personality and Individual Differences 43:
2011-2021
Moe, D. (2007): Evaluering av kampanjen “Si ifra” I Vestfold og Aust- og Vest-Agder
(“Evaluation of the “Come Forward” campaign organised in Vestford, Aust- and Vest-Agder
counties”, in Norwegian), SINTEF report STF50 A3827.
Moe, D (2005): Ungdom, bilkjøring og risiko i Vestfold 2004 (“Young people, motoring and risk
in Vestfold county 2004”, in Norwegian), SINTEF report STF50 A05085.
Moe, D. (1999): Dybdeanalyse av møte- og utforkjøringsulykker på rette strekninger i 80- og 90soner med død eller alvorlig skade (“Detailed analysis of collisions and off-road accidents on
straight roads within 80 and 90 zones resulting in death or serious injury”, in Norwegian),
SINTEF report STF22 A99559.
Moe, D. (1984): Unge førere, forholdet mellom opplevd og faktisk dyktighet (“Young drivers; the
relationship between perceived and actual competence”, in Norwegian), SINTEF report STF63
A84008.
75
Moe, D. and G. D. Jenssen (1993): Ungdom, risikotaking og bilkjøring (“Young people, risktaking and motoring”, in Norwegian), SINTEF report STF63 A93009.
Moe, D. and G. D. Jenssen (1990): Unge førere, risikotaking og pedagogiske konsekvenser
(“Young drivers, risk-taking and educational consequences”, in Norwegian), SINTEF report
STF63 A90007.
Moe, D. and G. Thomassen (2000): Vurdering av politiets forfølgelseskjøring. Dybdeanalyse av
44 biljakter (“Evaluation of police pursuit driving. Detailed analysis of 44 car pursuits”, in
Norwegian), SINTEF report STF22 A00563.
Murray, Å. (1998): The home and school background of young drivers involved in traffic
accidents. In Accident Analysis and Prevention 30: 169-182
Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt (Norwegian Institute of Public Health), 2005: Forekomst av alkohol
og andre rusmidler blant trafikkdrepte motorvognførere. Nordisk rapport for perioden 2001 –
2002.(“Incidence of alcohol and other drugs among vehicle drivers killed in road traffic
accidents”. Nordic report for the period 2001-2002, in Norwegian).
Nicholson, N., E. Soane, M. Fenton-O’Creevy and P. Willman (2005): Personality and domainspecific risk taking. In Journal of Risk Research 8: 157-176
Nordbakke, S. and T. Assum (2005): Innvandreres ulykkesrisiko og forhold til trafikksikkerhet
(“Accident risk among immigrants and attitudes to road traffic safety”, in Norwegian), TØI report
988/2008.
Norris, F. H., B. A. Matthews and J. K. Riad (2000): Characterological, situational, and
behavioural risk factors for motor vehicle accidents: a prospective examination. In Accident
Analysis and Prevention 32: 505-515
Palk, G. and J. Davey (2005): A Comparative Analysis of the Nature and Extent of Traffic
Offences and their Relationship to Other Non-Traffic Offences. Paper presented to the Australian
Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, 2005.
Peden, M., R. Scurfield, D. Sleet, D. Mohan, A. A. Hyder, E. Jarawan and C. Mathers (eds.)
(2004): World report on road traffic injury prevention. WHO-rapport, Geneva.
Rasmussen, K., O. Storsæter, S. Levander (1999): Personality Disorders, Psychopathy, and Crime
in a Norwegian Prison Population. In International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22: 91-97
Renner, W. and F.-G. Anderle (2000): Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlates of juvenile
drivers’ traffic violations. In Accident Analysis and Prevention 32: 673-678
Reyna, V. F. and Farley, F (2006a): Risk and Rationality in Adolescent Decision Making.
Contents. September, number 1 – 2006
Reyna, V. F. and Farley, F (2006b): Is the Teen Brain too Rational? In Scientific American Mind,
December 2006
Rose, G. (2000): The criminal histories of serious traffic offenders. Home Office Research Study
206. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, London.
Sagberg, F. and T. Bjørnskau (2003): Uerfaren bak rattet. Hva forklarer nye føreres
ulykkesreduksjon de første månedene med førerkort? (“Unexperienced behind the wheel. How do
we explain the reduction in accident involvement among novice drivers during the first months in
possession of a licence?”, in Norwegian), TØI report 656/2003.
Samferdselsdepartementet (Norwegian Ministry of Transport, 2009a): Kjøring under påvirkning
av andre rusmidler enn alkohol. Forslag til endring av vegtrafikkoven. Rapport fra arbeidsgruppe
mars 2009. (“Driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. Proposal for amendments to
the Road Traffic Act”. Working Group Report, March 2009, in Norwegian).
76
Samferdselsdepartementet (Norwegian Ministry of Transport, 2009b): Revidering av
prikkbelastningsordningen. Rapport fra arbeidsgruppe mars 2009 (“Revision of the penalty points
system”. Working Group Report, March 2009, in Norwegian).
Schmitt, E. L., P. A. Langan and M. R. Durose (2002): Characteristics of Drivers Stopped by
Police, 1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, US Department of Justice.
Schwebel, D., J. Severson, K. K. Ball and M. Rizzo (2006): Individual difference factors in risky
driving: The roles of anger/ hostility, conscientiousness, and sensation-seeking. In Accident
Analysis and Prevention 38: 801-810
Simon, F. and C. Corbett (1996): Road traffic offending, stress, age, and accident history among
male and female drivers. In Ergonomics 39/5: 757-780
Skarðhamar, T. (2005): Lovbruddskarrierer og levekår. En analyse av fødselskullet 1977
(“Violations records and living conditions. An analysis of birth cohort 1977”, in Norwegian)
Report 2005/9, Statistics Norway.
Sletten, M. A. (2007): Utsatt familieliv – dårlig råd og problematferd blant ungdom (“Vulnerable
family upbringing – poorer families and problem behaviour among young people”, in
Norwegian). In Tidsskrift for ungdomsforskning 7(1): 53-75
Smith, E. and M. R. Durose (2006): Characteristics of Drivers Stopped by Police, 2002. Bureau
of Justice Statistics Special Report, US Department of Justice.
Sommer, M., M. Herle, J. Haüsler, R. Risser, B. Scützhofer and Ch. Chaloupka (2008): Cognitive
and personality determinants of fitness to drive. In Transportation Research Part F 11: 362-375
Sorrentino, R. M., E. C. Hewitt and E. M. Bentler (1991): Risktaking in games of chance and
skill: Informational and affective influences on choice behavior. In Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 17: 701-708
Sümer, N., T. Lajunen and T. Özkan (2005): Big Five Personality Traits as the Distal Predictors
of Road Accident Involvement. Chap. 18 in Underwood, G. (ed.): Traffic and Transport
Psychology. Theory and Application. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Statens vegvesen (Norwegian Public Roads Administration, 2006): Dybdeanalyser av
dødsulykker i vegtrafikken. Nasjonal årsrapport for ulykkesanalysegruppenes arbeid i 2005.
(“Detailed analysis of fatal road traffic accidents. National Annual Report of the work of the
accident analysis groups”. In Norwegian). Report no. TS 2006:7
Statens vegvesen (Norwegian Public Roads Administration, 2007): Dybdeanalyser av
dødsulykker i vegtrafikken. Nasjonal årsrapport for ulykkesanalysegruppenes arbeid i 2006.
(“Detailed analysis of fatal road traffic accidents. National Annual Report of the work of the
accident analysis groups”. In Norwegian). Report no. TS 2007:9
Statens vegvesen (Norwegian Public Roads Administration, 2008): Dybdeanalyser av
dødsulykker i vegtrafikken. Nasjonal årsrapport for ulykkesanalysegruppenes arbeid i 2007.
(“Detailed analysis of fatal road traffic accidents. National Annual Report of the work of the
accident analysis groups”. In Norwegian). Report no. TS 2008:5
Steinberg, Laurence (2007): A social neurosscience perspective on adolescent risk taking.
Elsevier, ScienceDirect. Developmental review
Ulleberg, P. (2002): Personality subtypes of young drivers. Relationship to risk-taking
preferences, accident involvement, and response to a traffic safety campaign. In Transportation
Research Part F 4: 279-297
Ulleberg, P. and T. Rundmo (2003): Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of
risky driving behaviour among young drivers. In Safety Science 41: 427-443
77
Ulleberg, P. (2004): Aggressiv kjøring – en litteraturstudie (“Aggressive driving – a literature
study. In Norwegian). TØI report 709/2004.
Vaa, Truls (2003): Overlevelse eller avvik? En modell for bilføreres adferd (“Survival or
abberration? A model of driver behaviour”, In Norwegian). TØI report 666/2003.
Vassallo, S., D. Smart, A. Sanson, W. Harrison, A. Harris, S. Cockfield and A. McIntyre (2008):
Risky driving among young Australian drivers II: Co-occurrence with other problem behaviors. In
Accident Analysis and Prevention 40: 376-386
Vassallo, S., D. Smart, A. Sanson, W. Harrison, A. Harris, S. Cockfield and A. McIntyre (2007):
Risky driving among young Australian drivers: Trends, precursors and correlates. In Accident
Analysis and Prevention 39: 444-458
Whitlock, G., R. Norton, T. Clark, M. Pledger, R. Jackson and S. MacMahon (2003): Motor
vehicle driver injury and socioeconomic status: a cohort study with prospective and retrospective
driver injuries. In Journal of Epidemiol. Community Health 57: 512-516
Zuckerman, M. (2007): Sensation seeking and Risky Behavior. American Psychological
Association.
Zuckerman, M. (1994): Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Zuckerman, M. and D. Kuhlman (2000): Personality and risk-taking. Common biosocial factors.
Personality and risk-taking. Common biosocial factors. Journal of Personality 68: 999-1029
Internet sources:
www.youtube.com
www.adressa.no
78
ANNEX 1: TABLES
No. of accidents grouped according to day of the week:
Percen
No. tage
54 12.7 %
47 11.1 %
53 12.5 %
67 15.8 %
60 14.1 %
80 18.8 %
64 15.1 %
100.0
425
%
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
No. of accidents grouped
according to season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Total
No. Percentage
101
24 %
103
24 %
117
28 %
104
24 %
425
100 %
No. of accidents grouped according to time of day:
Hour
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
00
No. Percentage
13
3%
14
3%
6
1%
6
1%
8
2%
9
2%
19
4%
19
4%
7
2%
16
4%
21
5%
17
4%
29
7%
32
8%
33
8%
30
7%
19
4%
21
5%
20
5%
15
4%
20
5%
15
4%
16
4%
16
4%
79
No. of fatalities grouped according to county, and sorted according to no. per 1000 of the
population:
County
Buskerud
Aust-Agder
Sogn og Fjordane
Hedmark
Finnmark
Oppland
Troms
Nord-Trøndelag
Nordland
Telemark
Vest-Agder
Rogaland
Norge
Sør-Trøndelag
Østfold
Møre og Romsdal
Vestfold
Akershus
Hordaland
Oslo
Total
fatalities
2004-2005
Population
(01.01.07)
47
19
19
32
12
30
23
19
30
21
18
43
476
28
26
22
19
37
22
9
247 655
104 759
106 194
188 692
72 665
183 037
154 136
129 069
235 436
166 170
163 702
404 566
4 681 134
278 836
262 523
245 385
223 804
509 177
456 711
548 617
Fatalities
per 1000 of
pop. (20042005)
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.02
Road conditions:
Part snow or ice
Otherwise slippery road
Snow or ice-covered
road
Dry, clear road
Wet, clear road
Unknown
Total
No. Percentage
26
6%
10
2%
38
250
94
7
425
9%
59 %
22 %
2%
100 %
Visibility:
No. Percentage
Poor visibility,
precipitation
Poor visibility, fog/mist
Poor visibility, other
causes
Good visibility,
precipitation
Good visibility, dry
15
2
4%
0%
6
1%
55
336
13 %
79 %
80
Unknown
Total
11
425
3%
100 %
Light conditions:
Daylight
Dark, street lighting
Dark, no street lighting
Dusk/twilight
Unknown
Total
No.
256
79
75
11
4
425
Percentage
60 %
19 %
18 %
3%
1%
100 %
Class of road:
European Highway
National road
County road
Municipal road
Private road
Unknown
Total
No. Percentage
138
32 %
183
43 %
60
14 %
34
8%
7
2%
3
1%
425
100 %
Speed zone:
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
unknown
Total
No. Percentage
8
2%
7
2%
57
13 %
68
16 %
46
11 %
199
47 %
18
4%
2
0%
20
5%
425
100 %