Abstract
Objectives
The purpose of this study was to test the impact of a procedural justice letter intervention that was delivered with traffic infringement notices on subsequent speeding offences.
Method
This study used the Queensland Speeding Engagement Trial (QSET) to experimentally test the impact of using the principles of procedural justice within a police issued letter, on individuals detected speeding by cameras. Participants in the control condition (n = 7946) received a speeding infringement notice as per normal while those in the experimental condition (n = 8209) received the procedurally just letter in addition to the speeding infringement notice. Administrative data for the 12 months following the intervention was used to identify if participants engaged in subsequent speeding and other traffic offending behaviours.
Results
The results indicated that the intervention reduced subsequent speeding offences for drivers 25 years and older in the experimental condition when compared with the control condition. No differences were found for other types of traffic offences.
Conclusions
Thus, this study demonstrates that the effects of procedural justice (a) can be achieved through purposeful written communication and (b) reduce subsequent offending behaviour.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
In recent years, a significant amount of research regarding procedural justice, which is theorised to contain four sub-constructs: respect (or dignity), trustworthiness, neutrality, and voice, has been undertaken (e.g., Antrobus et al., 2019; Madon et al., 2017; Madon & Murphy, 2021; Mazerolle, Bennett, et al., 2013; Solomon, 2019). This research has occurred in a wide variety of criminal justice contexts including the courts (e.g., Gover et al., 2007; Wales et al., 2010), police (Bennett et al., 2019; Mazerolle, Antrobus, et al., 2013; Murphy et al., 2019; Sargeant et al., 2017), and corrections (e.g., Barkworth & Murphy, 2021; Maguire et al., 2021; Ryan & Bergin, 2022).
Research suggests that there are benefits associated with using procedural justice processes in policing interactions. For instance, procedural justice improves perceptions of police legitimacy which predicts cooperation with law enforcement (Bolger & Walters, 2019). Additionally, procedural justice appears to increase legitimacy which then improves compliance (Walters & Bolger, 2019). However, the direct relationship between perceptions of procedural justice and behavioural compliance is relatively weak and not seen when only considering at longitudinal studies (Walters & Bolger, 2019). Nagin and Telep (2020) argue there is a need for further research in this area to provide evidence that a causal relationship exists.
Despite the amount of procedural justice research that has been undertaken, there are research gaps. For instance, much of the research has focused on face-to-face interactions and been survey based (e.g., Bennett et al., 2016; Radburn & Stott, 2019; Reisig et al., 2014; Wells et al., in press) and therefore focused on perceptions and intentions as opposed to the impact on actual behaviour. This paper will address the research gaps by reporting on a randomised field experiment that identified if a camera detected traffic infringement notice that was accompanied by a letter that incorporated the principles of procedural justice influenced subsequent speeding behaviour.
Procedural justice and road policing
Road policing is a significant investment by policing agencies around the world to help reduce deaths on the road and provide a visible police presence to the public (Castillo-Manzano et al., 2019). To date, most road policing initiatives are based on deterrence theory (Bates et al., 2012; Truelove et al., 2017), although procedural justice is increasingly being considered as a framework to help improve road policing outcomes (Bates, 2014; Tudor-Owen, 2021). This is because earlier research has indicated that the use of procedural justice reduces subsequent offending. For instance, Paternoster et al. (1997) identified using a sample of male domestic violence perpetrators that a procedurally just interaction with a police officer affects subsequent offending.
While some research studies in this area have been conducted using video interactions (Lowrey et al., 2016) or vignette studies (Barkworth & Murphy, 2015; Madon et al., in press), randomised field experiments have sought to operationalise procedural justice in road policing contexts. For instance, a key study in this field was the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET), a field experiment that randomly assigned 60 roadside random breath testing operations, each consisting of 300–400 police-public encounters. In the experimental condition, police interacted with the drivers in a more procedurally just manner by communicating elements of neutral decision making (randomly selected for the breath test), trustworthy motives (the current road toll and impact of alcohol related road injuries/fatalities on family and police), treating drivers with respect (acknowledging and thanking drivers for their time), and providing voice (asking drivers for questions or comments). Whilst the interaction took significantly longer than the standard random breath test (Mazerolle et al., 2015), drivers in the experimental condition were more likely to report that their views on drinking and driving had changed as well as hold higher levels of self-reported compliance and satisfaction when compared with drivers in the control group (Mazerolle, Bennett, et al., 2013). The interaction also positively affected the views of the police officers (Bates et al., 2015).
Sahin et al. (2017) conducted an experiment with a sample of 458 drivers stopped for speeding in Turkey. Drivers in the experimental group received procedurally just treatment from a police officer which included providing information regarding the number of speed-related deaths in Turkey and how these police operations were designed to save lives. Interviews with the drivers following the police-driver interactions identified that the perceptions of the specific encounter were positive. However, there was not an improvement in general perceptions of traffic police officers. A further study in Turkey identified that individuals interacting with police at traffic stops perceived that an interaction with a police officer is more procedurally just when the officer has a body worn camera (Demir et al., 2020; Demir & Kule, 2022). Generally speaking, very few experiments occur within a road safety context despite the results of studies that use this methodology being considered trustworthy (Elvik, 2021).
In contrast to the field experiments, Bates, Allen, and Watson (2016) conducted a survey of 237 young novice drivers in Queensland, Australia, to identify if procedural justice was perceived to have an influence in more automated policing encounters such as camera detected speed offences. They considered how the four elements of procedural justice were perceived in relation to two types of speed cameras: point-to-point speed cameras and mobile speed cameras. The only procedural justice element related to these types of cameras and self-reported speeding by young drivers was neutrality.
While much of the existing research in this space is quantitative, there is a small amount of qualitative work that has explored procedural justice in a road policing context. Bates et al. (2021) undertook focus groups with young drivers in metropolitan and regional areas in two Australian states. They identified that young drivers perceived their interactions with police (which generally occurred in face-to-face contexts) to be respectful, gave them a voice and police officers and agencies could be trusted. However, they did not perceive that they were treated neutrally.
Wells (2008) had earlier undertaken research regarding procedural justice and camera based enforcement within the UK. She analysed discussion forums, held focus groups, and observed sessions of a Speed Awareness Course. The results indicated that while cameras used to detect speed were considered consistent, they were also considered unfair in many ways including by denying the driver a ‘voice’ in the interaction (Wells, 2008).
Increasingly, the use of procedural justice in road policing is being undertaken in non-western contexts. For instance, Soo Kim et al. (2019) used a South Korean adult driver convenience sample (n = 1241) to examine the effect of procedural justice on police legitimacy and then the effect of legitimacy on the intention to speed. While they found a relationship between procedural justice and police legitimacy, they did not find one between legitimacy and intention to speed. Tankebe et al. (2020) used cross-sectional survey data from 415 commercial vehicle drivers from Accra and Kumasi in Ghana to look at the effect of fairness on traffic violations. In contrast to research outlined above, they did not find a relationship between perceptions of police fairness and self-reported violations of traffic laws. Thus, it appears that the cultural context in which procedural justice interventions take place appears important. However, studies where the outcome is attitude-related or based on self-report data may not be directly comparable to studies that measure actual behavioural change. It is possible that cultural context may have a more limited impact on interventions that influence behavioural, as opposed to attitude, change.
It is important to note that not all road policing interventions based on procedural justice are successful even in western nations. MacQueen and Bradford et al. (2015) used the Festive Road Safety Campaign by Police Scotland to run an experiment. The experiment involved police officers providing key messages and a leaflet based on procedural justice to drivers. However, this experiment did not improve trust in police or legitimacy. This was possibly because the experiment was not implemented as planned due to breakdowns in communication leading to misunderstandings (MacQueen & Bradford, 2017).
As outlined above, most procedural justice research to date, particularly in the road safety field, has focussed on individual’s perceptions of the interaction. Additionally, with the exception of one or two studies that examine procedural justice within a speed camera context (Bates, Allen, & Watson, 2016; Wells, 2008), most research focuses on face-to-face interactions despite calls for investigations into how technologically mediated contacts with police can occur in a procedurally just manner (Wells et al., in press). The current study therefore fills an important gap by identifying if (a) a procedurally just intervention has an effect if it is delivered in a written format and (b) if there is an impact on subsequently detected speeding behaviour as opposed to perceptions.
Research context
Speeding is one of the ‘fatal five’ major contributing factors to fatalities on Queensland roads. In 2017, the year of our experiment, 52 or 21.1% of fatalities, and 292 or 4.5% of hospitalised casualties in Queensland involved speeding drivers or riders (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2018). Research consistently has identified that age is related to speeding with younger drivers more likely to engage in speeding behaviours (Hoye, 2020; Norton et al., 2021; Truelove et al., 2021).
Speed cameras are used to detect speed offences committed by drivers. They are used in a diverse range of jurisdictions including Australia (Freeman et al., 2017), Britain (Wells & Wills, 2009), France (Blais & Carnis, 2015), Israel (Schechtman et al., 2016), Qatar (Shaaban, 2017), Sweden (Belin et al., 2010), the United States (Retting et al., 2008), and New Zealand (Keall et al., 2001). There are three main types of speed cameras. Mobile cameras require an operator to deploy them either from inside a vehicle or on the side of the road (Freeman et al., 2017). In contrast, fixed cameras are permanently installed in a particular location (Freeman et al., 2017). Mobile and fixed cameras can be operated in either an overt manner where they are visible to drivers or a covert manner where they are hidden (Bates et al., 2012). The third type of camera is a point-to-point camera which measures the average speed of travel between two particular points on the road (Soole et al., 2013). Evidence indicates that speed camera programs decrease injuries and fatalities associated with crashes as well as reducing travelling speeds (e.g., Blais & Dupont, 2005; Carnis & Blais, 2013; Pilkington & Kinra, 2005; Quistberg et al., 2019; Tilahun, 2023; Wilson et al., 2010). Queensland operates mobile, fixed and point-to-point speed camera programs (Freeman et al., 2017). When a speed camera detects a vehicle exceeding the speed limit, a traffic infringement notice (TIN) including details of the alleged offence is mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle. When the owner receives the TIN, they can either pay the fine, transfer the fine to the responsible person, or dispute the fine.
Drivers do not report positive views of speed cameras and speeding enforcement. For instance, research conducted in the UK indicates that most drivers engage in travelling above the posted speed limit (Corbett, 2000) and that many drivers perceive speed cameras to be unjust and unfair (Wells, 2008; Wells & Wills, 2009). Australian research suggests that drivers hold paradoxical views regarding speed enforcement considering that it both encourages road safety and is a tool for revenue raising (Fleiter & Watson, 2006; Soole et al., 2008).
Methods
Intervention and randomised field trial
The trial involved a full sample of 16,406 drivers who received a camera-detected speed infringement between late August and early September 2017. Before the traffic infringement was issued to them, batches of traffic infringement notices were randomly allocated to either the control (business as usual) or the experimental condition. While both groups received the standard infringement notice, the experimental condition involved participants also receiving a letter constructed using the principles of procedural justice (see Appendix A).
The letter incorporated the principles of procedural justice and key road safety messages drawing on substantive foundational research and intervention design alongside direct consultation with road safety practice experts from the policing and transport agencies in Queensland and internationally. Specifically, the letter adapted and replicated messaging from (a) the QCET road police-driver dialogue (Mazerolle et al., 2012) to denote the number of people killed and injured because of speed-related crashes on Queensland roads, and the role of road policing to help reduce this toll, and (b) a letter trial ‘No driver means to kill. They were just going too fast’ conducted in a collaboration between the West Midlands Police and the Behavioural Insights Team UK that aimed to reduce repeat speeding and improve compliance with fine payments (Behavioural Insights Team, 2016). As camera detected traffic infringement notices do not allow for police-driver dialogue, these initial statements sought to activate elements of trust and respect as core foundations for procedural justice and legitimacy. The letter also sought to communicate trust, neutrality, and respect by including information on how speed limits are set to reduce serious collisions and how monies collected from speed camera fines are re-invested to improve road safety (e.g., road improvements, safety education, and Queensland Health blood products). The resulting letter aimed to reduce speeding infringements through drivers’ improved perceptions of procedural justice and awareness of the role of speeding and speed cameras on road safety. If a diffusion effect was present, the intervention may also reduce other traffic infringements.
Data
The Department of Transport and Main Roads provided the research team with the de-identified traffic offense data of 16,406 Queensland drivers that received a TIN during the experimental trial period. Drivers with incomplete or missing license or demographic information were excluded (approximately 1% of the total sample). The final sample, after data cleaning, was 16,155 Queensland drivers (see Table 1 for the sample description). Data was collected for 12 months before and after the intervention.
Drivers who had two or more general traffic offenses or with at least one high-speed traffic offence (i.e., greater than 40km over the speed limit) in the 12 months preceding the trial were classified as high-risk drivers. Drivers with a maximum of one traffic offence in the 12 months preceding the trial were classified as low-risk drivers. Additionally, across the same time period, the number of months before the driver had a second traffic offence following the intervention was calculated.
Data analysis
Analysis employed four difference-in-difference tests with a negative binomial approach to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention by identifying if drivers had received subsequent speeding infringements. The reason for this analysis methodology is due to a strong positive skew found in the number of traffic offences recorded by drivers in this sample. This is unsurprising, as many participants would receive between 0 and 2 additional traffic offences across the 24-month timeframe (12-months pre- and post-intervention). Difference-in-difference tests with a negative binomial approach allow for the use of data with a strong positive skew, while also testing the efficacy both the within (time) and between groups (condition) components of a randomised control trial, as well as balancing characteristics, both observed and unobserved, across the two conditions (McEwan, 2010). This approach has been used in previous studies into evaluations of speed camera-based traffic offences and incidences to reduce the impact of such data and samples on the results (Chainey et al., 2021; Li et al., 2012; Martínez-Ruíz et al., 2019; Yau et al., 2003).
The two dependant variables were number of speeding offenses, and number of other traffic offences (e.g., failing to stop at a stop sign, failing to stop at a traffic light). Given the relationship between age, risk taking, and traffic offences (Boufous et al., 2010; Hoye, 2020; Rodwell et al., 2023; Rolison et al., 2014), two additional analyses were proposed, one examining the effects of the program on young people (under 25 year-olds), and the other examining the effect on adults (25 years and older). The independent variables included time (12-months pre- and post-intervention), condition (0 = control, 1 = intervention), difference-in-difference (time × condition effect) age, gender (0 = female, 1 = male), driving profile (0 = low risk drivers, 1 = high risk drivers), and number of months until re-offence.
Results
The difference-in-difference tests found that individuals over the age of 25 years who received a procedural justice letter were 11% less likely to get an additional speeding fine in the 12 months following the initial speeding fine than individuals who received a standard speeding fine. No other significant interactions were found for other traffic offenses or speeding offenses for individuals under the age of 25. It is worth noting that being male was associated with higher numbers of all traffic offenses (6–33%), as was having a high-risk driver profile (193–570%). The results of the four difference-in-difference tests are shown in Table 2.
Discussion
The randomised field experiment reported here suggests that the inclusion of a letter incorporating the principles of procedural justice with a camera detected traffic infringement notice reduces subsequent speeding offending behaviour for drivers 25 years or older in the next 12 months by 11%. These findings are consistent with earlier research suggesting that a short procedurally just interaction with police officers can change perceptions of drunk driving and police (Mazerolle et al., 2012) and that the procedural justice element of respect is associated with fewer subsequent arrests for intimate partner violence (Maxwell et al., 2020). However, this study builds upon this earlier work by demonstrating that the effects of procedural justice (a) can be delivered in a written format and (b) have an effect on subsequent offending behaviour. These are key findings indicating that a relatively small intervention can have a demonstrable impact on offending behaviour.
Longitudinal research conducted in Maryland in the USA suggests that a single speeding infringement notice has a limited effect on reducing the likelihood that a person will receive a subsequent infringement notice (Lawpoolsri et al., 2007). Thus, it appears that for those 25 years or older, the addition of a letter based on procedural justice principles to a camera detected infringement notice strengthens the likelihood that the driver will reduce their speeding behaviour in the future. One possible reason for demonstrating the success of the intervention may be because speed cameras, while considered consistent, are not always considered fair (Wells, 2008). Thus, the inclusion of the letter may help enhance the perceptions of speeding offenders that speed cameras are fair.
This finding is consistent with the work of Tyler et al. (2021) who examined whether the use of procedurally just processes in a social media context assist individuals to self-regulate their behaviour and prevent the posting of inappropriate content (nudity). Although the sample size in the study was small, if people felt that they had been treated fairly by the social media platform, they were less likely to post nudity content in the future (Tyler et al., 2021).
It is possible that the mere presence of the letter in the current study may have created a Hawthorne effect (where participants change their behaviour because they believe they are being observed). This would mean that it was not the content of the letter that affected subsequent speeding behaviour. However, as there were no significant differences for all traffic offences or younger drivers, the differences that were found are unlikely to be related to a Hawthorne effect.
There was no reduction in speeding offences for young drivers. There are a range of social and situational factors (e.g., social group and peers), exposure factors (e.g., the times of day that they drive), core attributes (e.g., gender and personality), modifiable attributes (e.g., skill and experience), and situational assessment, decision making and hazard perception that mean young drivers crash at much higher rates than other drivers (Bates et al., 2014). There is also some emerging evidence that road policing interventions based on deterrence theory are not as effective for young drivers (Allen et al., 2017; Bates et al., 2017; Bates, Scott-Parker, et al., 2016) and that there may be a need to use more innovative approaches such as incorporating parents (Bates et al., 2019). The lack of reduction in speeding offences as a result of the intervention in this study is consistent with the idea that it is more difficult to reduce offending for younger drivers when compared to those who are 25 or older.
In this study, the procedural justice letter was focused on speed. This was because it was sent to individuals who had committed a camera detected speeding offence. However, we did consider if the letter had either a diffusion or a displacement effect on other road offending behaviour. The lack of a significant difference between the intervention and the control group indicates that there is no diffusion or displacement effect present.
Not all procedurally just interventions demonstrate the same positive effect found in this study. For instance, as noted in the literature review, the Festive Road Safety Campaign by Police Scotland did not result in improved trust in police or perceptions of legitimacy (MacQueen & Bradford, 2015, 2017). Similarly, Tankebe et al. (2020) did not find a direct relationship between perceptions of police fairness and self-reported violations of traffic laws in Ghana. This suggests that the type of intervention, the way procedural justice is included in the interaction, the outcome measure (whether it is attitudinal or behavioural), and the cultural context all affect whether or not a procedurally just intervention is successful.
This study identified that women are less likely than men to have a follow-up traffic offence or speeding offence after being detected speeding by an enforcement camera. This is consistent with other research that identifies that male drivers are more likely than female drivers to receive a speeding infringement notice (e.g., Factor, 2018; Lawpoolsri et al., 2007). Consistent with the work of Watson et al. (2014), high range speed offenders were more likely to re-offend within 12 months of receiving a camera detected infringement notice when compared with low range speed offenders. High-range speeding offenders, and other high risk traffic offenders, are also more likely to engage in other types of crime (Bates et al., 2022). Thus, the use of alternative punishments for high-range speed offenders, such as vehicle impoundment, may reduce re-offending rates for both traffic and criminal offences (Watson et al., 2020).
One limitation of this study is the assumption that it was the letter in the experimental condition that increased perceptions of procedural justice, and thus influenced subsequent behaviour. However, this was not explicitly tested. Thus, it is possible that something other than improved perceptions of procedural justice such as increased understanding of the association between speeding, speed cameras, and road safety affected participants subsequent speeding behaviour.
A key strength of this study was the randomised field experiment design. As noted by J. Li et al. (2011), more randomised controlled evaluations are needed to inform traffic safety policies. However, due to the nature of the administrative data collected, it was not possible to include psycho-social variables that have been associated with speeding behaviours such as personality (Cestac et al., 2011; Delhomme et al., 2012; Machin & Sankey, 2008), or attitudes (Hatfield et al., 2008; Newnam et al., 2004). Future research could take this into account by combining survey data with administrative infringement data. Further research could also consider the impact of vicarious experiences of procedural justice on traffic offending as it appears this also has an effect on compliance with the law (Kaiser & Reisig, 2019).
Additionally, camera detected infringement notices are issued to the registered owner of the vehicle in Queensland. If this person was not driving, they can then transfer this infringement to the person who was driving at the time of the infringement. However, we were not able to identify if infringement notices were transferred to other drivers. Therefore, our follow-up administrative data relates to the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the infringement. If tickets are transferred more frequently from men to women, or from younger to older persons, these differences may affect the results.
This study joins the growing body of procedural justice research that has occurred in western contexts such as the USA (e.g., Weisburd et al., in press), UK (Bradford et al., 2015), Europe (e.g. Sytsma et al., 2021), and Australia (e.g. Madon et al., in press; Zahnow et al., in press). However, there is a need for more research in non-western cultures to identify if the effects of a procedurally just non face-to-face interaction are as effective. There is also a need for more research into road policing within developing communities (Sam, 2022).
Despite these limitations, this study demonstrates that the inclusion of a letter drafted using the principles of procedural justice reduces subsequent speeding behaviour for those who are 25 years or older. Thus, it is possible for police agencies to engage in procedurally just interactions with individuals even when they are not interacting with them face-to-face and that these interactions will increase compliance. At a practical level, police agencies should test and incorporate procedurally just interactions even when technology facilitates their interactions with members of the public.
References
Allen, S., Murphy, K., & Bates, L. (2017). What drives compliance? The effect of deterrence and shame emotions on young drivers’ compliance with road laws. Policing and Society, 27(8), 884–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2015.1115502
Antrobus, E., Thompson, I., & Ariel, B. (2019). Procedural justice training for police recruits: results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15, 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9331-9
Barkworth, J., & Murphy, K. (2015). Procedural justice policing and citizen compliance behaviour: The importance of emotion. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(3), 254–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.951649
Barkworth, J., & Murphy, K. (2021). Procedural justice, posturing and defiant action: Exploring prisoner reactions to prison authority. Justice Quarterly, 38(3), 537–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1666905
Bates, L. (2014). Procedural justice and road policing: Is it important? In Paper presented at the 2014 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing & Education Conference.
Bates, L., Alexander, M., & Webster, J. (2022). The link between dangerous driving and other criminal behaviour: A scoping review. Safer Communities, 21(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-02-2022-0009
Bates, L., Allen, S., & Watson, B. (2016). The influence of the elements of procedural justice and speed camera enforcement on young novice driver self-reported speeding. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 92, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.03.023
Bates, L., Anderson, L., & McLean, R. (2021). Exploring young drivers’ perceptions of procedurally just policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(3), 1933–1647. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paab016
Bates, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Martin, P. (2015). Comparing police and public perceptions of a routine traffic encounter. Police Quarterly, 18(4), 442–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611115589290
Bates, L., Darvell, M., & Watson, B. (2017). Young and unaffected by road policing strategies: Using deterrence theory to explain provisional drivers’ (non)compliance. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 50(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865815589824
Bates, L., Davey, J., Watson, B., King, M., & Armstrong, K. (2014). Factors contributing to young driver crashes: A review. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal, 14(3), 297–305.
Bates, L., Rodwell, D., & Matthews, S. (2019). Young driver enforcement within graduated driver licensing systems: A scoping review. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 21(2), 116–135. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-019-00061-x
Bates, L., Scott-Parker, B., Allen, S., & Watson, B. (2016). Young driver perceptions of police traffic enforcement and self reported driving offences. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 39(4), 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-10-2015-0121
Bates, L., Soole, D., & Watson, B. (2012). The effectiveness of traffic policing in reducing traffic crashes. In T. Prenzler (Ed.), Policing and security in practice: Challenges and achievements. Palgrave Macmillan.
Behavioural Insights Team. (2016). The behavioural insights team updated report 2015–2016. Retrieved from London, United Kingdom:
Belin, M., Tillgren, P., Vedung, E., Cameron, M., & Tingvall, C. (2010). Speed cameras in Sweden and Victoria, Australia—A case study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 2165–2170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.07.010
Bennett, S., Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Martin, P., & Hine, L. (2019). The trials and tribulations of evidence based procedural justice. In R. Mitchell & L. Huey (Eds.), Evidence based policing: An introduction (pp. 145–160). Policy Press.
Bennett, S., Newman, M., & Gray, A. (2016). The Queensland Mobile Police Community Office project: Putting wheels in motion for procedurally just community policing. Police Science: Australia & New Zealand Journal of Evidence Based Policing, 1(1), 25–31.
Blais, E., & Carnis, L. (2015). Improving the safety effect of speed camera programs through innovations: Evidence from the French experience. Journal of Safety Research, 55, 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.08.007
Blais, E., & Dupont, B. (2005). Assessing the capability of intensive police programme to prevent severe road accidents. British Journal of Criminology, 45, 914–937. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azi017
Bolger, P., & Walters, G. (2019). The relationship between police procedural justice, police legitimacy, and people’s willingness to cooperate with law enforcement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 60, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.01.001
Boufous, S., Ivers, R., Senserrick, T., Stevenson, M., Norton, R., & Williamson, A. (2010). Accuracy of self-report of on-road crashes and traffic offences in a cohort of young drivers: The DRIVE study. Injury Prevention, 16(4), 275–277. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2009.024877
Bradford, B., Hohl, K., Jackson, J., & MacQueen, S. (2015). Obeying the rules of the road: Procedural justice, social identity, and normative compliance. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986214568833
Carnis, L., & Blais, E. (2013). An assessment of the safety effects of the French speed camera program. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 51, 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.11.022
Castillo-Manzano, J., Castro-Nuno, M., Lopez-Valpuesta, L., & Pedregal, D. (2019). From legislation to compliance: The power of traffic law enforcement for the case study of Spain. Transport Policy, 75, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.12.009
Cestac, J., Paran, F., & Delhomme, P. (2011). Young drivers’ sensation seeking, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control and their roles in predicting speeding intention: How risk-taking motivations evolve with gender and driving experience. Safety Science, 49(3), 424–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.10.007
Chainey, S. P., Serrano-Berthet, R., & Veneri, F. (2021). The impact of a hot spot policing program in Montevideo, Uruguay: An evaluation using a quasi-experimental difference-in-difference negative binomial approach. Police practice and Research, 22(5), 1541–1556. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2020.1749619
Corbett, C. (2000). A typology of drivers' responses to speed cameras: Implications for speed limit enforcement and road safety. Psychology, Crime & Law, 6(4), 305–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160008409809
Delhomme, P., Chaurand, C., & Paran, F. (2012). Personality predictors of speeding in young drivers: Anger vs. sensation seeking. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15(6), 654–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.06.006
Demir, M., Apel, R., Braga, A., Brunson, R., & Ariel, B. (2020). Body worn cameras, procedural justice and police legitimacy: A controlled experimental evaluation of traffic stops. Justice Quarterly, 37(1), 53–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1495751
Demir, M., & Kule, A. (2022). The effect of body-worn cameras on satisfaction and general perceptions of police: Findings from a quasi-randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Criminology, 19(4), 562–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370820905105
Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2018). Queensland road crash weekly report (1043e). Retrieved from Brisbane: https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/ckan-publications-attachments-prod/resources/241a2c44-6a82-42f6-8b42-147d6a06a50c/weeklyreport_1043e_2017_12_31.pdf?ETag=99bfb8a32fb1d44b3c5a06b4fa3772c5. Accessed 18 Mar 2021
Elvik, R. (2021). Why are there so few experimental road safety evaluation studies: Could their findings explain it? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 163, 106467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106467
Factor, R. (2018). An empirical analysis of the characteristics of drivers who are ticketed for traffic offences. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 53, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.12.001
Fleiter, J., & Watson, B. (2006). The speed paradox: The misalignment between driver attitudes and speeding behaviour. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 17(2), 23–30.
Freeman, J., Kaye, S.-A., Truelove, V., & Davey, J. (2017). Is there an observational effect? An exploratory study into speed cameras and self-reported offending behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 108, 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.08.020
Gover, A., Brank, E., & MacDonald, J. (2007). A specialized domestic violence court in South Carolina. Violence Against Women, 13(6), 603–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207301553
Hatfield, J., Fernandes, R., Faunce, G., & Job, R. F. S. (2008). An implicit non-self-report measure of attitudes to speeding: Development and validation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(2), 616–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.08.020
Hoye, A. (2020). Speeding and impaired driving in fatal crashes—Results from in-depth investigations. Traffic Injury Prevention, 7, 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2020.1775822
Kaiser, K., & Reisig, M. (2019). Legal socialization and self-reported criminal offending: The role of procedural justice and legal orientations. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 35, 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9375-4
Keall, M. D., Povey, L., & Frith, W. J. (2001). The relative effectiveness of a hidden versus a visible speed camera programme. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 33(2), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00042-7
Lawpoolsri, S., Li, J., & Braver, E. R. (2007). Do speeding tickets reduce the likelihood of receiving subsequent speeding tickets? A longitudinal study of speeding violators in Maryland. Traffic Injury Prevention, 8(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580601009764
Li, H., Graham, D. J., & Majumdar, A. (2012). The effects of congestion charging on road traffic casualties: A causal analysis using difference-in-difference estimation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 49, 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.02.013
Li, J., Amr, S., Braver, E. R., Langenberg, P., Zhan, M., Smith, G., & Dischinger, P. (2011). Are current law enforcement strategies associated with a lower risk of repeat speeding citations and crash involvement? A longitudinal study of speeding Maryland drivers. Annals of Epidemiology, 21(9), 641–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2011.03.014
Lowrey, B., Maguire, E., & Bennett, R. (2016). Testing the effects of procedural justice and overaccommodation in traffic stops: A randomized experiment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1430–1449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816639330
Machin, M. A., & Sankey, K. S. (2008). Relationships between young drivers’ personality characteristics, risk perceptions and driving behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40, 541–547.
MacQueen, S., & Bradford, B. (2015). Enhancing public trust and police legitimacy during road traffic encounters: Results from a randomised controlled trial in Scotland. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 419–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9240-0
MacQueen, S., & Bradford, B. (2017). Where did it all go wrong? Implementation failure—and more—In a field experiment of procedural justice policing. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(3), 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9278-7
Madon, N., Murphy, E., & Sargeant, E. (2017). Promoting police legitimacy among disengaged minority groups: Does procedural justice matter more? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(5), 624–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817692849
Madon, N., & Murphy, K. (2021). Police bias and diminished trust in police: A role for procedural justice? Policing: An. International Journal, 44(6), 1031–1045. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-03-2021-0053
Madon, N., Murphy, K., & Williamson, H. (in press). Justice is in the eye of the beholder: A vignette study linking procedural justice and stigma to Muslims’ trust in police. Journal of Experimental Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-022-09510-4
Maguire, E., Atkin-Plunk, C., & Wells, W. (2021). The effects of procedural justice on cooperation and compliance among inmates in a work release program. Justice Quarterly, 38(6), 1128–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1634753
Martínez-Ruíz, D. M., Fandiño-Losada, A., de Leon, A. P., Arango-Londoño, D., Mateus, J. C., Jaramillo-Molina, C., & Gutiérrez-Martínez, M. I. (2019). Impact evaluation of camera enforcement for traffic violations in Cali, Colombia, 2008–2014. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 125, 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.02.002
Maxwell, C., Moore, A., Fontaine, J., & Smith, J. (2020). Status influences on perceptions of procedural justice: A test of the group value model among intimate partner violence arrestees. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 44(1-2), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2019.1575253
Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. (2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00289.x
Mazerolle, L., Bates, L., Bennett, S., White, G., Ferris, J., & Antrobus, E. (2015). Optimising the length of random breath tests: Results from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 256–276.
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(4), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9160-1
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 245–274.
McEwan, P. (2010). Empirical research methods in the economics of education. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01211-2
Murphy, K., Cherney, A., & Teston, M. (2019). Promoting Muslims’ willingness to report terror threats to police: Testing competing theories of procedural justice. Justice Quarterly, 36(4), 594–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1437210
Nagin, D., & Telep, C. (2020). Procedural justice and legal compliance: A revisionist perspective. Criminology and Public Policy, 19(3), 761–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12499
Newnam, S., Watson, B., & Murray, W. (2004). Factors predicting intentions to speed in a work and personal vehicle. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7, 287–300.
Norton, J., Fung, L., & Stayton, C. (2021). Self-reported speeding among New York City adult drivers, 2015–2016. Journal of Community Health, 46, 626–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-020-00924-7
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Bachman, R., & Sherman, L. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and Society Review, 31(1), 163–204. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054098
Pilkington, P., & Kinra, S. (2005). Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties: Systematic review. BMJ, 330, 331–334. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38324.646574.AE
Quistberg, D., Thompson, L., Curtin, J., Rivara, F., & Ebel, B. (2019). Impact of automated photo enforcement of vehicle speed in school zones: Interrupted time series analysis. Injury Prevention, 25, 400–406. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2018-042912
Radburn, M., & Stott, C. (2019). The social psychological processes of ‘procedural justice’: Concepts, critiques and opportunities. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 19(4), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818780200
Reisig, M., Tankebe, J., & Mesko, G. (2014). Procedural justice, police legitimacy and public cooperation with the police among young Slovene adults. Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, 2, 147–164.
Retting, R., Farmer, C., & McCartt, A. (2008). Evaluation of automated speed enforcement in Montgomery County Maryland. Traffic Injury Prevention, 9(5), 440–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580802221333
Rodwell, D., Bates, L., Larue, G., Watson, B., & Haworth, N. (2023). The prototype willingness model: An application to adolescent driver speeding. Journal of Safety Research, 84, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.10.016
Rolison, J. J., Hanoch, Y., Wood, S., & Liu, P.-J. (2014). Risk-taking differences across the adult life span: a question of age and domain. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69(6), 870–880. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbt081
Ryan, C., & Bergin, M. (2022). Procedural justice and legitimacy in prisons: A review of extant empirical literature. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(2), 143–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211053367
Sahin, N., Braga, A., Apel, R., & Brunson, R. (2017). The impact of procedurally-just policing on citizen perceptions of police during traffic stops: The Adana Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(4), 701–726.
Sargeant, E., Antrobus, E., & Platz, D. (2017). Promoting a culture of fairness: Police training, procedural justice and compliance. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13, 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9296-0
Schechtman, E., Bar-Gera, H., & Musicant, O. (2016). Driver views on speed and enforcement. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 89, 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.12.028
Shaaban, K. (2017). Assessment of drivers’ perceptions of various police enforcement strategies and associated penalties and rewards. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2017, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5169176
Solomon, S. (2019). How do the components of procedural justice and driver race influence encounter-specific perceptions of police legitimacy during traffic stops? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(8), 1200–1216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819859606
Soo Kim, Y., Hyan Ra, K., & McLean, K. (2019). The generalizability of police legitimacy: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and speeding intention of South Korean drivers. Asian Journal of Criminology, 14, 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-018-9278-9
Soole, D., Fleiter, J., & Watson, B. (2013). Point-to-point speed enforcement: Recommendations for better practice. In Paper presented at the 2013 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference.
Soole, D., Lennon, A., & Watson, B. (2008). Driver perceptions of police speed enforcement: Differences between camera-based and non-camera based methods: Results from a qualitative study. In Paper presented at the 2008 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference.
Sytsma, V., Piza, E., Chillar, V., & Grossman, L. (2021). Measuring procedural justice policy adherence during use of force events: The body-worn camera as a performance monitoring tool. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 32(9), 938–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211021
Tankebe, J., Boakye, K., & Amagnya, M. (2020). Traffic violations and cooperative intentions among drivers: The role of corruption and fairness. Policing and Society, 30(9), 1081–1096.
Tilahun, N. (2023). Safety impact of automated speed camera enforcement: Empirical findings based on Chicago’s speed cameras. Transportation Research Record, 2677(1), 1490–1498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198122110480
Truelove, V., Freeman, J., Szogi, E., Kaye, S.-A., Davey, J., & Armstrong, K. (2017). Beyond the threat of legal sanctions: What deters speeding behaviours? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 50, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.08.008
Truelove, V., Watson-Brown, N., Parker, E., Freeman, J., & Davey, J. (2021). Driving through a pandemic: A study of speeding and phone use while driving during COVID-19 restrictions. Traffic Injury Prevention, 22(8), 605–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2021.1980213
Tudor-Owen, J. (2021). The importance of ‘blue shirts’ in traffic policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(1), 480–491. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paz012
Tyler, T., Katsaros, M., Meares, T., & Venkatesh, S. (2021). Social media governance: Can social media companies motivate voluntary rule following behavior among their users? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17, 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09392-z
Wales, H., Aldige Hiday, V., & Ray, B. (2010). Procedural justice and the mental health court judge’s role in reducing recidivism. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(4), 265–271.
Walters, G., & Bolger, P. (2019). Procedural justice perceptions, legitimacy beliefs and compliance with the law: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15, 341–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9338-2
Watson, A., Kaye, S.-A., Fleiter, J., & Freeman, J. (2020). Effectiveness of vehicle impoundment for high-range speeding offences in Victoria, Australia. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 145, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105690
Watson, B., Watson, A., Siskind, V., Fleiter, J., & Soole, D. (2014). Profiling high-range speeding offenders: Investigating criminal history, personal characteristics, traffic offences, and crash history. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 74, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.10.013
Weisburd, D., Jonathan-Zamir, T., White, C., Wilson, D. B., & Kuen, K. (in press). Are the police primarily responsible for influencing place-level perceptions of procedural justice and effectiveness? A longitudinal study of street segments. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224278221120
Wells, H. (2008). The techno-fix versus the fair cop: Procedural (in)justice and automated speed limit enforcement. British Journal of Criminology, 48, 798–817. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azn058
Wells, H., & Wills, D. (2009). Individualism and identity: Resistance to speed cameras in the UK. Surveillance and Society, 6(3), 259–274.
Wells, H., Aston, E., Bradford, B., O’Neill, M., Clayton, E., & Andrews, W. (in press). ‘Channel shift’: Technologically mediated policing and procedural justice. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/146135572211329
Wilson, C., Willis, C., Hendrikz, J., Le Brocque, R., & Bellamy, N. (2010). Speed cameras for the prevention of road traffic injuries and deaths. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 11. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4
Yau, K. K., Wang, K., & Lee, A. H. (2003). Zero-inflated negative binomial mixed regression modeling of over-dispersed count data with extra zeros. Biometrical Journal: Journal of Mathematical Methods in Biosciences, 45(4), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200390024
Zahnow, R., Bennett, S., Bates, L., Antrobus, E., & Irvine, C. (in press). An analysis of the effect of social norms on payment of speeding fines. Psychology, Crime & Law. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2104278
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. This research received funding from the Queensland Police Service.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this material are those of the authors and are not those of the Queensland Police Service. Responsibility for any errors of omission or commission remains with the authors. The Queensland Police Service expressly disclaims any liability for any damage resulting from the use of the material contained in this publication and will not be responsible for any loss, howsoever arising, from use or reliance on this material.
Conflict of interest
This research received funding from the Queensland Police Service. The views expressed in this material are those of the authors and are not those of the Queensland Police Service. Responsibility for any errors of omission or commission remains with the authors. The Queensland Police Service expressly disclaims any liability for any damage resulting from the use of the material contained in this publication and will not be responsible for any loss, howsoever arising, from use or reliance on this material. Claire Irvine was employed by the Queensland Police Service at the time this research was undertaken.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
ESM 1
Appendix: Experimental flyer included with speed camera infringement notice (DOCX 272 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bates, ., Bennett, S., Irvine, C. et al. A procedurally just flyer reduces subsequent speeding offences: evidence from the Queensland Speeding Engagement Trial (QSET). J Exp Criminol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09582-w
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09582-w