Newslink September 2021

Special feature: Unlicensed driving
Almost a quarter of all offenders
(and over a third of the disqualified,
not currently licensed, and never
licensed drivers) reported driving
unlicensed when they thought they
might have been over the limit.
Similarly, 25 per cent reported
exceeding the speed limit
Continued from page 25
While evidence from some studies
tends to confirm that many offenders
reduce their overall driving exposure in
order to avoid detection, it is unclear
whether this results in more cautious
driving. All the offender types reported
relatively high levels of care in obeying
the road rules.
However, more specific responses
relating to drink-driving, speeding, and
seat belt compliance suggest that many
participants were not always cautious in
their driving behaviour. For example,
almost a quarter of all offenders (and
over a third of the disqualified, not
currently licensed, and never licensed
drivers) reported driving unlicensed when
they thought they might have been over
the limit. Similarly, 25 per cent reported
exceeding the speed limit by 10 km/h or
more on (at least) most occasions, while
15 per cent admitted that they didn’t
always wear their seatbelt.
Moreover, while it is problematic to
compare responses across surveys using
different methodologies, the self-reported
drink driving, speeding, and seat belt
behaviour of the participants appeared
less safe than that reported by licensed
drivers. Consequently, the evidence
supports a number of different
explanations. First, it is possible that
among some (possibly many) unlicensed
drivers the desire to avoid detection
tends to result in more cautious driving.
Second, it is possible that even among
those unlicensed drivers who admit
regularly breaking road rules, their
driving is more cautious than it would
otherwise be (even though they are not
as cautious as general drivers). Finally, as
suggested by Hurst (1982, cited in
Silcock, 2000) it is possible that the
behaviour learned while driving
unlicensed may not actually be safer, but
more oriented to avoiding detection
instead.
Crash involvement
of unlicensed drivers
Due to the difficulties involved in
surveying unlicensed drivers, road safety
authorities have tended to rely on the use
of crash data as a surrogate measure of
unlicensed driving. In one of the first
studies of this kind, Coppin and Van
Oldenbeek (1965) examined the crash
and offence records of over 1,300
negligent drivers who had their licences
suspended or revoked as a result of
offences committed in late 1955/early
1956. The records indicated that at least
33% of those suspended and 68% of
those revoked drove during the sanction
period. A more recent study in the United
States examined the involvement of
unlicensed drivers in fatal crashes from
1993-97; this found that 11.1 per cent
of drivers involved in fatal crashes were
unlicensed. In addition, 16.3 per cent of
fatal crashes involved at least one
unlicensed driver.
Factors contributing to
unlicensed driving
In order to understand the factors
contributing to unlicensed driving, it is
essential to obtain an insight into
the motivations, attitudes and
perceptions of the different types of
offenders. The reasons most
frequently cited by respondents are
related to business or employment
commitments, family, or social reasons
and lack of public transport. A study in
Victoria, Australia of over 1,550
disqualified drivers found that among
those who continued to drive, many
reported doing so only in exceptional
circumstances. Nevertheless, their
responses suggested that “a considerable
number of exceptional circumstances
presented themselves.”
While employment reasons were most
frequently cited, family and social
reasons were given equal weight in
others. Driving while disqualified was
more prevalent among those who were
employed and worked far from home,
those who lived in households without
another licence holder, and those
who had access to a vehicle.
A more recent, smaller-scale survey of
50 unlicensed drivers in the UK found
26
NEWSLINK n SEPTEMBER 2021