Differences in perceived seriousness of overt and covert road traffic offenses: Some implications for the effectiveness of legal sanctions.

Abstract

Attitudes towards the perceived seriousness of road traffic offenses were studied as a function of the age and sex of drivers. Ratings of seriousness of 31 verbalized offenses were analyzed using detection theory parameters to study sensitivity and bias effects in the discrimination of “overt” and “covert” offenses. Overt offenses were defined as those which are immediately obvious to a casual observer, such as jumping red traffic lights. Covert offenses are those not so easily observable, such as driving a defective vehicle. The latter are inherently more hazardous, because they do not allow other road users to adopt appropriate margins of safety. The results indicated that young male drivers were relatively insensitive in discriminating between overt and covert offenses compared with other subgroups of drivers tested. Instructions which directed drivers to judge the offenses from the standpoints of personal responsibility, or involvement in, or the social consequences of, any accidental outcome, increased sensitivity relative to no such instructions being given. Analysis of the rating data itself showed that, overall, overtly offensive driving was considered less serious than covertly offensive driving. This was particularly the case for male and younger drivers. Possible implications of the results for legal sanctioning and other accident countermeasures are discussed.