"There's no way in hell I would pull up": Deterrent and other effects of vehicle impoundment laws for hooning

Traffic law enforcement is based on deterrence principles, whereby drivers control their behaviour in order to avoid an undesirable sanction. For “hooning”-related driving behaviours in Queensland, the driver’s vehicle can be impounded for 48 hours, 3 months, or permanently depending on the number of previous hooning offences. It is assumed that the threat of losing something of value, their vehicle, will discourage drivers from hooning. While official data shows that the rate of repeat offending is low, an in-depth understanding of the deterrent effects of these laws should involve qualitative research with targeted drivers. A sample of 22 drivers who reported engaging in hooning behaviours participated in focus group discussions about the vehicle impoundment laws as applied to hooning offences in Queensland. The findings suggested that deterrence theory alone cannot fully explain hooning behaviour, as participants reported hooning frequently, and intended to continue doing so, despite reporting that it is likely that they will be caught, and perceiving the vehicle impoundment laws to be extremely severe. The punishment avoidance aspect of deterrence theory appears important, as well as factors over and above legal issues, particularly social influences. A concerning finding was drivers’ willingness to flee from police in order to avoid losing their vehicle permanently for a third offence, despite acknowledging risks to their own safety and that of others. This paper discusses the study findings in terms of the implications for future research directions, enforcement practices and policy development for hooning and other traffic offences for which vehicle impoundment is applied.

[1]  Mark J. King,et al.  Enhancing road safety for young drivers: How Graduate Driver Licensing initiatives can complement "anti-hooning" legislation. , 2007 .

[2]  Barry C. Watson,et al.  The road safety implications of unlicensed driving : A survey of unlicensed drivers , 2003 .

[3]  Alex R. Piquero,et al.  An Application of Stafford and Warr's Reconceptualization of Deterrence to Drinking and Driving , 1998 .

[4]  E. Vingilis A NEW LOOK AT DETERRENCE , 1990 .

[5]  L J Cook,et al.  The fast and the fatal: street racing fatal crashes in the United States , 2004, Injury Prevention.

[6]  Judy J. Fleiter,et al.  The Speed Paradox: The Misalignment Between Driver Attitudes and Speeding Behaviour , 2005 .

[7]  Mark J. King,et al.  Hooning offenders and offences: Who and what are we dealing with? , 2007 .

[8]  M H Cameron,et al.  CRASH-BASED EVALUATION OF THE SPEED CAMERA PROGRAM IN VICTORIA 1900- 1991; PHASE 1: GENERAL EFFECTS; PHASE 2: EFFECTS OF PROGRAM MECHANISMS , 1992 .

[9]  L. Lanza-Kaduce,et al.  Social learning and deviant behavior: a specific test of a general theory. , 1979, American sociological review.

[10]  Paul Tranter,et al.  Paper title: Fast and Furious 3: illegal street racing, sensation seeking and risky driving behaviours in New Zealand , 2004 .

[11]  D. Steinhardt,et al.  Hoon driving: predicting involvement from social learning and deterrence perspectives , 2007 .

[12]  Barry C. Watson,et al.  The psychosocial characteristics and on-road behaviour of unlicensed drivers , 2004 .

[13]  J. Freeman,et al.  An application of Stafford and Warr's reconceptualisation of deterrence to a group of recidivist drink drivers. , 2006, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[14]  D. Zaal TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. , 1994 .

[15]  Mark Warr,et al.  A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence , 1993 .