SQU Med J, February 2011, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 29-37, Epub. 12th Feb 11
Invited Article 
Submitted 19th Aug 10
Revision ReQ. 5th Oct 10, Revision recd. 2nd Nov 10
Accepted 10th Nov 10

Deterrence Theory
The importance of improving road safety within 
motorised countries is reflected in the wide array 
of countermeasures that are presently being 
employed to reduce the prevalence of engaging in 
unsafe driving behaviours, e.g., law enforcement, 
media campaigns, rehabilitation and education, etc. 
Many of these countermeasures utilise deterrence 
theory as this theory is central to criminology and 

criminal justice policy.1,2,3 In regards to deterrence, 
the Classical Deterrence Theory remains the mostly 
widely understood model, and it proposes that 
individuals will avoid offending behaviour(s) if they 
fear the perceived consequences of the act.3,4 Two 
18th century utilitarian philosophers, Bentham 
and Beccaria, are regarded as the founders of this 
theory which makes implicit assumptions regarding 
human behaviour. These are, namely, that law 
breaking is inversely related to the certainty, severity 

Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, Institute of Health and Biological Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 
Australia.
*Corresponding Author email: j.davey@qut.edu.au

<Ÿ¯}<‡⁄<—Ü�÷]<Ì⁄¯â<∞ä†
≈ÅÜ÷]<Ó◊¬<ÌÈflf⁄<l]ÖÅ^f⁄

pÁù<Ì√q]Ü⁄<











 :مفتاح الكلمات

aBStract: The efficacy of road safety countermeasures to deter motorists from engaging in illegal behaviours is 
extremely important when considering the personal and economic impact of road accidents on the community. 
In many countries, deterrence theory has remained a cornerstone of criminology and criminal justice policy, 
particularly within the field of road safety, as policy makers and enforcement agencies attempt to increase 
perceptions regarding the certainty, severity and swiftness of sanctions for those who engage in illegal motoring 
behaviours. Using the Australian experience (particularly the tremendous amount of research into drink driving), 
the current paper reviews the principles underpinning deterrence theory, the utilisation of the approach within 
some contemporary road safety initiatives (e.g., random breath testing) as well as highlighting some methods to 
enhance a deterrent effect. The paper also provides direction for future deterrence-based research, in particular, 
considering the powerful impact of non-legal sanctions, punishment avoidance as well as creating culturally 
embedded behavioural change.

Keywords: Deterrence; Road Safety Countermeasures; Sanctions; Non-legal Sanctions

Improving Road Safety through 
Deterrence-Based Initiatives

A review of research
*Jeremy D Davey and James E Freeman

REVIEW



Improving Road Safety through Deterrence-Based Initiatives 
A review of research

30 | SQU Medical Journal, February 2011, Volume 11, Issue 1 review | 30

and swiftness of punishment.5 This means that legal 
threats are most effective when possible offenders 
perceive a high likelihood of apprehension, and 
believe that the impending punishment will be both 
severe and swift.3 

Certainty of Apprehension
Within the Classic Deterrence Doctrine, a number 
of researchers have asserted that the most powerful 
deterrent effects on offending behaviour are 
produced by the perceived threat of the certainty of 
apprehension.3,4,6,7 Certainty in the present context 
refers to the perceived likelihood that an offender 
will be arrested and punished for their criminal act. 
In order for the “fear of punishment” to be effective, 
individuals must believe that the likelihood of 
apprehension for breaking the law is relatively high.3 

Evaluations regarding the certainty of 
apprehension have been extensively reviewed for 
a variety of different criminal acts (e.g., robbery, 
violent crimes, shop lifting, drug abuse), with a 
considerable body of research demonstrating a 
significant, although weak, negative relationship 
between certainty of arrest and crime rates.4,8,9,10,11,12 
That is, individuals who perceive the chances of 
arrest as high are more deterred from committing 
an offence than individuals who believe that they 
are unlikely to be apprehended.3 As a result, road 
safety operations that increase the perceptions 
of apprehension certainty for engaging in illegal 
behaviours are likely to have a positive effect on 
deterring offenders.13

Severity of Sanctions
The perceived severity of legal sanctions has also 
been considered to be extremely important when 
examining the deterrent effects of legal penalties 
on offending behaviour(s).4 The Classic Deterrence 
Doctrine proposes that individuals will be reluctant 
to commit an offence if they consider that the 
penalty for such an offence is severe.4 Not only 
have the deterrent effects of perceived severity of 
punishment not received the same level of attention 
as that of certainty,14,15 but also the results within the 
literature are conflicting.

A considerable body of early research 
demonstrated a weak negative relationship between 

perceived severity of sanctions and a range of 
illegal behaviours.11,12,14,16,17 That is, as perceptual 
severity increases, the likelihood of an individual 
committing that offence decreases;4 however, 
an opposing body of research demonstrates that 
perceptions regarding the severity of penalties 
do not have the salient deterrent impact that was 
once assumed.3,6,11,15,17 In fact, some researchers 
have reported a counter-intuitive relationship, with 
crime rates actually increasing with increases in the 
severity of the penalty.10,12,18,19 Nevertheless, it may 
be suggested that the greatest deterrent impact in 
regards to severity of sanctions will be found among 
those who have never committed an offence, rather 
than habitual offenders.3

Swiftness of Sanctions
The third aspect of the Classic Deterrence Doctrine 
refers to the deterrent effect of celerity, as it is 
proposed that the application of punishments for 
illegal behaviour will be most salient when they 
are administered soon after the criminal act.3 This 
belief has direct links to models of learning and 
experimental psychology (e.g., conditioning), as 
it has been demonstrated that the time between 
stimulus and response is vital in regards to learning 
new behaviours.7 Likewise, it is recognised that for 
road safety, the swiftness of impending penalties 
is an important aspect for achieving deterrence.3,20 
However, despite the link between the speed of 
the response and learned behaviour, the effects 
of the celerity of legal sanctions is by far the least 
studied of the three major deterrent mechanisms 
in the Classic Deterrence Doctrine.2,7 This is partly 
because penalties are rarely applied swiftly in the 
criminal justice system.2

Specific Versus General 
Deterrence
While there are many different variations of 
deterrence, in the broadest sense there are two 
deterrence processes commonly known as specific 
and general deterrence.3,4 Specific deterrence is 
most commonly understood to be the process 
whereby an individual who has been apprehended 
and punished for a criminal act refrains from further 
offending behaviour for fear of incurring additional 
punishment.3,21 In contrast, general deterrence 



Jeremy D Davey and James E Freeman

review | 31

cultural behaviours such as drink driving. In 
regards to the latter, arguably one of the best known 
examples of general deterrence working effectively 
is through the implementation of random breath 
testing (RBT). RBT was introduced into Australia 
in the 1980s and involves police officers randomly 
stopping motorists and analysing their breath 
samples, via a hand held device, to determine if 
they have consumed more alcohol than is legally 
permitted in order to operate a motor vehicle. 
While a number of factors have contributed to the 
reduction of drink driving in Australia over the 
past 30 years, studies evaluating the effectiveness  
of RBT have revealed this countermeasure to be  
one of the primary reasons why alcohol-related 
crashes have reduced in Australia.30,31 For example, 
a review of RBT in Queensland found that the 
introduction of the programme was associated with 
an 18% reduction in alcohol-related driver and rider 
fatalities.32 The general deterrent effect is achieved 
(in part) by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) 
conducting the equivalent of one (preliminary) 
breath test for every licensed driver per year. In 
the financial years 2001–2002 and 2002–2003, the 
QPS conducted over 2.6 million preliminary breath 
tests.33,34 This currently represents the highest 
rate of breath testing by any police jurisdiction 
in Australia,35 and demonstrates a high level of 
commitment by the QPS to the RBT program as 
well as to promote a general deterrent effect. This 
commitment to high testing levels has required 
high levels of resources including extra manpower, 
officer hours and equipment, to maintain. The 
QPS has also implemented improvements to RBT 
operations through the acquisition of state of the 
art breath testing equipment, booze buses (e.g., 
mobile testing units) and the implementation of 
coordinated intelligence efforts in relation to crash 
and offender hot spots.33,34 

Although the apprehension of drink driving 
offenders is important, it has been argued that the 
main purpose of RBT is to deter the general driving 
population from drink driving.3 This also remains 
a central aim of other road safety initiatives, such 
as visible speed cameras on the side of the road 
to deter motorists from breaking the speed limit. 
Again in regards to drink driving (or other similar 
behaviours) the ideal general deterrence-based 
operation is one that is highly visible, sustained 
and widespread.3,28 However, these features should 

occurs when an individual refrains from engaging 
in a criminal behaviour as a result of observing 
others being punished for the offending behaviour 
or they are warned of the impending penalties 
for committing an offence such as through media 
campaigns.3,4

In regards to specific deterrence, the application 
of legal sanctions following a conviction for an 
offence such as drink driving or speeding has a 
number of purposes including punishment, reform, 
retribution and possibly incapacitation.22 However, 
a primary goal of the sanctioning process is to deter 
offenders from repeating the same crime in the 
future, and thus, the penalty should be perceived 
as certain, severe and swift.3,22 Attempts to deter 
motoring offenders through the application of 
legal sanctions form a core component of current 
sentencing practices,2,23 and a growing body of 
research has demonstrated that sanctions have the 
capacity to reduce the likelihood of re-offending 
among a range of motoring groups for a range 
of offences including speeding,24,25 unlicensed 
driving,26,27 drink driving,3,28 etc.

In regards to general deterrence, a considerable 
body of evidence suggests that the threat of 
apprehension and subsequent legal sanctions, 
especially when supported by well-publicised media 
campaigns, can produce a deterrent effect, even if 
short, on offending behaviour.3,7,29 More specifically, 
campaigns to reinforce the consequences of an 
aberrant behaviour (such as drink driving in the 
Australian context), or increasing the perceived 
severity or certainty of penalties (as well as 
apprehension) have produced a beneficial effect on 
crashes and serious injury rates15 as well as actual 
perceptions of arrest certainty.3,29

Random Breath Testing as 
an Example of Targeting 
Cultural Change
In general, research has demonstrated that the 
utilisation of deterrence-based initiatives can 
create lasting attitudinal and behaviour change 
in regards to aberrant driving behaviours, such 
as speeding and drink driving. In fact, within 
Australia, deterrence-based countermeasures have 
been demonstrated to have the potential to create 
attitudinal and behavioural change even among 
established, entrenched and previously accepted 



Improving Road Safety through Deterrence-Based Initiatives 
A review of research

32 | SQU Medical Journal, February 2011, Volume 11, Issue 1

remain central to all road safety countermeasures 
that aim to deter offending behaviours. In regards 
to RBT, it is also a communication tool, influencing 
community perceptions of the social unacceptability 
of drink driving. For example, the aim is not only to 
target the specific behaviour, but also the cultural 
climate in which that behaviour occurs and is 
supported. Community surveys conducted over 
the years have shown that since the introduction 
of RBT, there has been an increase in the number 
of people who disapprove of drink driving.36 As 
a result, deterrence-based initiatives have the 
potential to create lasting cultural and attitudinal 
change in behaviours that were once supported (or 
tolerated) within the community. For example, in 
regards to drink driving, while the behaviour was 
historically accepted for many decades in Australia, 
research has consistently demonstrated changes 
in community perceptions regarding the offence. 
Illustrating this, an earlier study by the Australian 
Transport Safety Bureau37 found that 54% of 
Australians believe that drink driving is a major 
cause of crashes. The same study also found that 
97% of Australians support random breath testing 
enforcement by police.

In addition to RBT, a number of Australian 
states have commenced, using a similar method, 
to analyse randomly the oral fluid of motorists to 
determine if they have recently consumed illicit 
substances such as cannabis and amphetamines. 
Preliminary research is beginning to demonstrate 
that randomly testing motorists can also produce 
a general deterrent effect, although the practice 
should be complemented with a wide spread media 
campaign to increase the overall deterrent effect, 
e.g., increase motorists’ perceptions regarding 
the wide spread use of the technique as well as 
the increased likelihood of being detected. Taken 
together, a foundation of deterrence theory focuses 
on modifying road safety behaviour, and it can also 
be applied within a range of road safety concerns 
such as speeding, unlicensed driving, etc. as well 
as setting the agenda for cultural change. Within 
Australia, the tremendous amount of knowledge 
that has been obtained from focusing on deterring 
the drinking driver is now being re-directed towards 
other unsafe driving behaviours such as those 
mentioned above and which are more common in 
the Gulf States.

Extending Deterrence 
Theory: Non-Legal 
Sanctions
Despite the prominence of the deterrence doctrine 
within road safety initiatives, a number of additional 
theories that focus on social, developmental, 
environmental and biological factors have been 
developed in an attempt to understand a range 
of criminal activities. As a result, a number of 
models have stemmed from, and expanded the 
scope of, the Classic Deterrence Doctrine. One 
significant direction of theoretical change has 
been to commence examining the deterrent 
effect that non-legal sanctions have on decisions 
to commit an offence, e.g., social control theory. 
This endeavour has resulted in an increase in the 
number of factors proposed to influence criminal 
behaviour, e.g., social disapproval, feelings of guilt, 
fear of physical injury. One of the reasons for this 
expansion was criticisms that traditional deterrence 
models did not account for the large array of non-
legal factors that may influence an individuals’ 
decision regarding committing an offence, as it is 
recognised that penalties are not applied within a 
social vacuum.38,39,40 In fact, researchers have argued 
that road safety offences occur within a social 
context, and that there are a plethora of additional 
attitudinal and behavioural factors (e.g., morality, 
peer pressure, etc) that may produce a stronger 
impact on offending behaviour(s) than traditional 
legal sanctions.3,39 

As a result, a number of additional models have 
been developed that focus on rational choice and 
prospect theories, and thus suggest that both legal 
and non-legal sanctions affect a person’s decision 
to commit an unsafe driving behaviour. This re-
orientation has resulted in an increase in the 
number of factors proposed to influence offending 
behaviour, such as peer/social sanctions, fear of 
being injured, moral attachment to the norm, 
and moral obligations to the law. As a result, such 
additional factors have now influenced associated 
educational campaigns designed to increase 
motorists’ attitudes regarding the importance of 
road safety. While a complete review of the many 
non-legal factors proposed to influence criminal 
and “at-risk” behaviour is beyond the scope of the 
current paper, some factors are briefly discussed 
below and may be relevant to societies with high 



Jeremy D Davey and James E Freeman

review | 33

avoidance; c) indirect (vicarious) experience of 
punishment; and d) indirect (vicarious) experience 
with punishment avoidance. The model suggests 
that both general and specific deterrence have the 
potential to influence an individual’s decision to 
commit an illegal behaviour, and are thus compatible 
with contemporary learning theories through 
the acknowledgement that both experiential and 
vicarious experiences have a direct effect on learning 
and decision making.46 The model highlights the fact 
that the experience of punishment is not the only 
important factor to achieve deterrence, but also 
recognises that the process of punishment avoidance 
is likely to influence further offending behaviours.47 
Preliminary research has suggested the model has 
considerable potential to shed light on why some 
individuals are not deterred by the threat of legal 
sanctions, particularly in regards to the problem of 
personally avoiding detection and punishment and/
or observing others achieve similar outcomes. For 
example, preliminary research has demonstrated 
punishment avoidance to be negatively associated 
with perceptions of arrest certainty, and positively 
associated with illegal drug use in high school 
students.47 These findings highlight the need to 
implement road safety initiatives that maximise the 
probability of apprehending individuals who violate 
road rules.

Directions for Future 
Research and Theoretical 
Limitations
Despite the tremendous amount of research that 
has focused on the mechanisms and processes 
of deterrence over the past 30 years, researchers 
admit that the precise circumstances under which 
sanctions (or the threat of sanctions) are likely to 
influence or change a person’s behaviour are still 
not known.2,48 One limitation within the deterrence 
literature is the lack of research that has examined 
convicted offenders,6 particularly repeat offenders, 
and why they seem immune or impervious to the 
threat of legal sanctions.44 Specifically, research has 
yet to determine whether repeat offenders consider 
penalties to be “certain, severe and swift”, or why a 
considerable proportion continue to drink and drive 
despite incurring increasingly severe sanctions.3,15 

Another major limitation within the deterrence 
field is that the vast majority of deterrence research 

degrees of social pressure such as those in the Gulf 
area.

One non-legal sanction that has consistently 
been proposed to influence motorists’ driving 
behaviours has been the threat of injuring oneself 
or another motorist.3,41 This deterrent factor 
forms a central component of many road safety 
advertising campaigns that promotes the serious 
negative health consequences that may result from 
an offence such as drink driving, e.g., crashes and 
fatalities. A second non-legal sanction that has 
been hypothesised to affect criminal behaviour is 
moral commitment to the norm, such as whether 
individuals are willing to break the law. More 
broadly, both moral commitment to the norm and 
respect for the law have been identified as having an 
effect on the prevalence of criminal activities.3,10,42,43 
As a result, increasing individuals’ awareness 
of social norms (such as not drink driving) has 
considerable merit to influence subsequent driving 
behaviours. Another non-legal factor involves the 
threat of social stigma resulting from informal 
sanctions. Given that deterrence is a psychological 
process that takes place within a larger social 
context of human activity,3 it has been hypothesised 
that social and cultural norms affect the prevalence 
of offending behaviours in a community.4,7,40 A 
considerable body of research has demonstrated 
that informal sanctions such as social disapproval 
or fear of social stigma produce a significant 
deterrent effect on a number of illegal acts such 
as shoplifting, violent behaviour, etc.4,15,17,41 In fact, 
some researchers have reported that the threat of 
informal sanctions produces a greater deterrent 
effect on offending behaviour than the threat of 
formal legal sanctions.12,44,45 As a result, the negative 
effect of social sanctions are also increasingly being 
included in campaigns designed to improve road 
safety.

Another prominent direction of theoretical 
development in regards to deterrence has been to 
consider the effect of avoiding punishment and 
exposure to others avoiding punishment, which 
has been proposed to have a major influence on 
subsequent offending behaviour.  In 1993, Stafford 
and Warr proposed a reconceptualised model of 
deterrence that incorporates four categories of 
experiences that have been suggested to affect 
the deterrent process: a) direct experience of 
punishment; b) direct experience of punishment 



Improving Road Safety through Deterrence-Based Initiatives 
A review of research

34 | SQU Medical Journal, February 2011, Volume 11, Issue 1

has focused on college students and the general 
public.16 More specifically, current understanding 
regarding the mechanics of deterrence initiatives 
is heavily skewed towards programmes of research 
that have focused predominantly on younger 
populations. Thus, less is currently known about 
the general deterrent impact of possible future 
legal punishment on wider motoring populations’ 
actual offending behaviours. In part, this limitation  
stems from the difficulties associated with 
determining casual directions, eliminating 
competing explanations,3 and examining large 
groups of motorists’ self-reported attitudes 
and offending behaviours. What is commonly 
understood is that deterrence processes are 
generally unstable and fluctuate over time,3 which 
suggests that individuals’ perceptions of sanctions, 
and the impact that such sanctions have on their 
behaviours, are likely to change. Therefore, one of 
the primary concerns with deterrence theory is that 
deterrence is considered to be unstable and can 
change over time.3 There thus remains a continual 
need to investigate and refine the deterrent impact 
of current countermeasures on the motoring 
population.

Increasing Deterrent 
Effects 
The various principles incorporated within 
deterrence theory have together been proven to 
increase road safety in a number of motorised 
countries (e.g., United States, Canada, Australia, 
etc.) and within a range of areas including speeding, 
unlicensed driving, drink driving, and drug driving. 
However, in order to maximise the greatest 
deterrent effect, it appears that policy makers and 
enforcement agencies need to maintain a balance 
between both the general and specific deterrent 
aspects of the theory. For example, in regards to 
speeding enforcement, the overall efficiency of the 
programme could be optimised by maintaining 
(and increasing over time) the high level of speed 
cameras and mobile operations as well as increasing 
the number of drivers detected. Importantly, in 
order to create and maintain a deterrent effect, 
policing operations should be highly visible, 
sustained and widespread.3,35 This ensures that all 
motorists, whether newly licensed or experienced, 
perceive a constant high risk of apprehension. 

If drivers do not regularly observe policing 
operations, they may become undeterred which 
may be then reinforced by successfully engaging in 
offending behaviours that remain undetected, e.g., 
punishment avoidance. Stemming from this, the 
effectiveness of any deterrence-based enforcement 
practice is heavily dependent upon increasing 
motorists’ perceptions regarding the risk of being 
apprehended for an offence, e.g., general deterrence. 
As a result, there is a need to utilise a variety of 
public education strategies to ensure motorists are 
aware of current efforts to apprehend offenders. 
One proven method is to conduct regular publicity 
campaigns that highlight sustained efforts to detect 
offenders through a variety of mediums including 
television advertising, radio, brochures, posters, 
etc. In general, research has begun to demonstrate 
that well-executed mass media campaigns (that are 
widely implemented, targeted and persuasive rather 
than fear eliciting) have the potential to reduce 
offending behaviours and/or culturally-embedded 
unsafe behaviours.49,50,51

In summary, deterrence remains unstable 
and requires high levels of police resources and 
commitment in order to maintain it. As highlighted 
previously, it should also be noted that our current 
understanding of the mechanisms of deterrence 
is based heavily on studies that have focused on 
younger populations. In fact, the bulk of published 
deterrence-based studies are from a small number 
of highly industrialised countries (e.g., United 
States, Canada, Australia, etc), and thus deterrent 
forces are likely to fluctuate with the surrounding 
environment. In fact, it should be acknowledged 
that environmental modifications have the 
potential to create a greater level of behavioural 
change in some countries than deterrence-based 
initiatives.52 Nevertheless, in order to ‘maximise’ 
deterrent effects, enforcement operations should 
consider utilising targeted and intelligence-led 
enforcement methods to increase the likelihood of 
identifying and apprehending motorists engaging 
illegal behaviours. In regards to speeding, this  
might involve commencing mobile operations 
at high risk times in high risk locations where 
people are most likely to speed. This could be  
complemented with the use of crash and 
apprehension data which highlights where and 
when crashes or previous arrests have occurred. 
However, there are other enforcement methods  



Jeremy D Davey and James E Freeman

review | 35

3. Homel J. Policing and punishing the drinking driver. 
A study of specific and general deterrence. New 
York: Springer-Verlag, 1988.  

4. Von Hirsch A, Bottoms A, Burney E, Wikstrom 
P. Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: an 
analysis of recent research. Oregon: Hart Publishing, 
1999.

5. Taxman S, Piquero A. On preventing drunk driving 
recidivism: an examination of rehabilitation and 
punishment approaches. J Crim Justice 1998; 
26:129–43.

6. Decker S, Wright R, Logie R. Perceptual deterrence 
among active residential burglars: a research note. 
Criminol 1993; 31:135–47.

7. Nagin, S, Pogarsky G. Integrating celerity, impulsivity, 
and extralegal sanction threats into a model of 
general deterrence: theory and evidence. Criminol 
2001; 39:865–89.

8. Grasmick HG, Jacobs D, McCollom CB. Social class 
and social control: an application of deterrence 
theory. Soc Forces 1983; 62:359–74.

9. Richards P, Tittle CR. Socioeconomic status and 
perceptions of personal arrest probabilities. Criminol 
1982; 20:329–46.

10. Silberman M. Toward a theory of criminal 
deterrence. Am Sociol Rev 1976; 41:442–61.

11. Teevan JJ. Subjective perception of deterrence 
(continued). J Res Crime & Delinq1976; 13:155–64.

12. Tittle CR. Evaluating the deterrent effects of 
criminal sanctions. In: Klein MW, Teilmann KS, Eds. 
Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation. Beverly 
Hills: Sage Publications, 1980.

13. Watson B, Freeman J. Perceptions and experiences of 
Random Breath Testing in Queensland and the self-
reported deterrent impact on drunk driving. Traffic 
Injury Prevent 2007; 8:11–19.

14. Grasmick HG, Bryjak GJ. The deterrent effect of 
perceived severity of punishment. Soc Forces 1980; 
59:471–91.

15. Ross HL. Deterring the drinking driver. Legal policy 
and social control. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 
1982.

16. Klepper S, Nagin D. The deterrent effect of perceived 
certainty and severity of punishment revisited.  
Criminol 1989; 27:721–46.

17. Paternoster R, Iovanni L. The deterrent effect of 
perceived severity: a reexamination. Soc Forces 1986; 
64:751–77.

18. Mann RE, Vingilis ER, Gavin D, Adlaf E, Anglin 
L. Sentence severity and the drinking driver: 
relationship with traffic safety outcome. Accident 
Anal & Prevent 1991; 23:483–91.

19. Meier RF, Johnson WT. Deterrence as social control: 
the legal and extralegal production of conformity. 
Am Sociol Rev 1977; 42:292–304.  

that have resulted in increased detection rates 
including the use of covert operations comprised 
of unmarked cars and plain-clothes police.53 This 
approach may prove particularly useful in rural 
areas and the greatest effects may be achieved 
through a mixture of overt and covert enforcement 
methods.

However, it is noted that any deterrence-based 
method employed in isolation does not offer a 
panacea for the problem of road accidents and 
fatalities, and thus researchers and policy makers 
also need to look beyond such principles to 
identify other methods both to increase motorists’ 
awareness of the importance of safe motoring as 
well as to create lasting behavioural change. In 
fact, there are a number of initiatives that are likely 
either to complement the general deterrent effect of 
law enforcement operations (e.g., use of publicity, 
media advocacy, changing community norms), or 
improve the management of convicted offenders, 
e.g., rehabilitation, licence actions, vehicle 
sanctions. Therefore, it is important that deterrent-
based approaches are not considered in isolation, 
but rather, form part of a multi-modal approach 
(including education) to improve road safety and 
change entrenched “at-risk” driving behaviours. 
More generally, and when attempting to alter 
behaviour, there are two main pathways to ensure 
compliance: 1) the extrinsic pathway governed by 
systems and rules with rewards and punishments, 
and 2) the intrinsic pathway that establishes 
voluntary compliance via individual commitment 
to safety. While deterrence theory may be argued 
to be one of the key ingredients to improve road 
safety, it is noted that an excessive amount of 
extrinsic motivation in the form of policies and 
regulations may actual trigger further issues by 
reducing the intrinsic motivation of drivers to 
perform safety behaviours. As a result, establishing 
intrinsic commitment to road safety throughout 
the community can only assist in achieving more 
sustainable and reliable behavioural change.

References
1. Andenaes J. Punishment and deterrence. Ann Arbor: 

The University of Michigan Press, 1974.

2. Babor T, Caetano R, Casswell S, Edwards G, 
Giesbrecht N, Graham K, et al. Alcohol: no ordinary 
commodity. Research and public policy. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press, 2003.



Improving Road Safety through Deterrence-Based Initiatives 
A review of research

36 | SQU Medical Journal, February 2011, Volume 11, Issue 1

20. McArthur DL, Kraus JF. The specific deterrence of 
administrative per se laws in reducing drunk driving 
recidivism. Am J Prev Med 1999; 16:68–75.

21. Watson B. The effectiveness of drink driving licence 
actions, remedial programs and vehicle-based 
sanctions. Proceedings of the 19th ARRB Research 
Conference. Melbourne: Australian Road Research 
Board, 1998.

22. Freeman J, Liossis P, Schonfeld C, Sheehan M, 
Siskind V, Watson B. The self-reported impact of 
legal and non-legal sanctions on a group of recidivist 
drink drivers. Transport Res Part F: Traffic Psychol & 
Behav 2006; 9:53–64.

23. Smith K. A Qualitative Study of Deterrence and 
Deviance in a Group of Recidivist Drink Drivers.  
Unpublished Masters Manuscript. University of 
Canberra, Australia, 2003.

24. Elvik R, Christensen P. The deterrent effect of 
increasing fixed penalties for traffic offences: the 
Norwegian experience.  J Safety Res 2007; 38:689–
95.

25. Glendon A, Cernecca L. Young drivers’ responses 
to anti-speeding and anti-drink-driving messages. 
Transport Res Part F: Traffic Psychol & Behav 2003; 
6:197–216.

26. Siskind V. Does license disqualification reduce 
reoffence rates? Accident Anal & Prevent 1996; 
28:519–24.

27. Voas RB, Tippetts AS, Lange JE. Evaluation of 
a method for reducing unlicensed driving: the 
Washington and Oregon license plate sticker laws. 
Accident Anal & Prevent 1997; 29:627–34.

28. Watson B, Hart S, Freeman J, Tay R, Davey J, Madden 
J, et al. Review of Random Breath Testing (RBT) in 
Queensland. Queensland: Queensland University of 
Technology, 2005.

29. Grosvenor D, Toomey TL, Wagenaar AC. Deterrence 
and the adolescent drinking driver. J Safety Res 1999; 
30:187–91.

30. Henstridge J, Homel R, Mackay, P. The long-term 
effects of random breath testing in four Australian 
states: A time series analysis (CR 162). Canberra, 
Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety, 1997.

31.  Harrison W, Newman S, Baldock M, McLean J. 
Issues in developing better practice in enforcement 
targeting drink driving. Draft Contract Report 
for AustRoads. Melbourne, Australia: Monash 
University Accident Research Centre, 2003.

32. Watson B, Fraine G, Mitchell L. Enhancing the 
effectiveness of RBT in Queensland. Prevention 
of Alcohol Related Road Crashes: Social and Legal 
Approaches Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Griffith 
University and Queensland Transport, 1994.

33. Queensland Police Service Annual Report 2001–
2002. Queensland Government. From: http://www.
police.qld.gov.au/pr/services/reports/01_02/index.
shtml  Accessed: Sept 2003.

34. Queensland Police Service Annual Report 2002–
2003. Queensland Government. From: http://www.
police.qld.gov.au/pr/services/reports/02_03/index.
shtml Accessed: Sept 2003.

35. Kolesnik P. Queensland Police Service random breath 
testing targets issues paper. Brisbane: Queensland 
Police Service, 2002.

36. Mitchell-Taverner P. Community attitudes to road 
safety: Community attitudes survey wave 11 (CR 
180). Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road 
Safety, 1998.

37. Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). Road 
Fatalities Australia: 2000 Statistical Summary. 
Canberra, Australia: ATSB, 2001.

38. Anderson LS, Chiricos TG, Waldo GP.  Formal 
and informal sanctions: a comparison of deterrent 
effects.  Soc Probs 1977; 25:103–14.

39. Berger D, Snortum J. A structural model of drinking 
and driving: alcohol consumption, social norms, and 
moral commitments. Criminol 1986; 24:139–53.

40. Sherman LW. Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: 
a theory of the criminal sanction. J Res Crime & 
Delinq 1993; 30:445–73.

41. Baum S. Self-Reported drink driving and deterrence. 
Austr & NZ J Criminol 1999; 32:247–61.

42.  Brown S. Associations between peer attitudes and 
behaviour, random breath testing experience and 
drink driving in a population-representative sample 
of South Australians.  From: http://www.druglibrary.
org/schaffer/misc/driving/s6p4.htm. Accessed: May 
2002. 

43. Piquero AR, Tibbetts S. Specifying the direct and 
indirect effects of low self-control and situational 
factors in offenders’ decision making: toward a more 
complete model of rational offending. Justice Quart 
1996; 13:481–510.

44. Beirness DJ, Mayhew DR, Simpson HM. DWI Repeat 
Offenders: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature. 
Canada: Health Canada, 1997.

45. Snortum R. Deterrence of alcohol-impaired driving: 
an effect in search of a cause.  In: Laurence MD, 
Snortum R, Zimring FE, Eds. The Social Control 
of Drinking and Driving. Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press, 1988. Pp.189–226.

46. Stafford MC, Warr M. A reconceptualisation of 
general and specific deterrence.  J Res Crime & 
Delinq 1993; 30:123–35.

47. Paternoster R, Piquero A. Reconceptualizing 
deterrence: an empirical test of personal and 
vicarious experiences. J Res Crime & Delinq 1995; 
32:251–86.

48. Piquero AR, Pogarsky G.  Beyond Stafford and 
Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence: personal 
and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending 
behavior. J Res Crime & Delinq 2002; 39:153–86.

49. Elder RW, Shults RA, Sleet DA, Nichols JL, 



Jeremy D Davey and James E Freeman

review | 37

messages. Accident Anal & Prevent 2010; 42:459–67.

52. World Health Organisation. Global Status Report 
on Road Safety: Time for Action.  Geneva: WHO, 
Department of Violence and Injury Prevention, 2009.

53. Healy D, Wylie B. Evolving drink driving enforcement 
strategies and public education in regional Victoria. 
In: Proceedings Road Safety Research, Policing, 
Education Conference, 16-17 November, Wellington, 
New Zealand. New Zealand: Land Transport Safety 
Authority and New Zealand Police, 1998, Vol. 2,  
pp. 70–3.

Thompson RS, Rajab W. Effectiveness of mass media 
campaigns for reducing drinking and driving and 
alcohol-involved crashes. Am J Prev Med 2004; 
27:57–65.

50. Lewis I, Watson B, White K, Tay, R. Promoting 
public health messages: Should we move beyond 
fear-evoking appeals in road safety? Qual Health Res 
2007; 17:61–74.

51. Lewis I, Watson B, White, K. Response efficacy: 
the key to minimizing rejection and maximizing 
acceptance of emotion-based anti-speeding