# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How do I report a 1-way between subjects ANOVA in APA style?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do I report a 1-way between subjects ANOVA in APA style?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Promoting trust in police findings from a randomised experimental field trial of procedural justice policing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated January 02, 2017 09:53:36

Drivers across Australia are being urged to take care, with a rising road toll devastating thousands of families and costing the economy billions of dollars.

There has been a concerning spike in deaths after record low numbers just a few years ago, sparking concerns about the effectiveness of road safety campaigns.

The Federal Government estimated road crashes were costing the Australian economy $27 billion a year.

Police said it had been a "horror time", while road safety campaigners like Peter Frazer warned of the severe consequences if the message about sensible driving did not get through.

"It's a grieving process that you go through for the rest of your life," Mr Frazer said.

Mr Frazer lost his daughter Sarah when she was hit by a truck, after the 23-year-old's car broke down on the Hume Highway in New South Wales in February 2012.

"While I'm very proud of the outcomes - we've created National Road Safety Week, we're doing some work both nationally and internationally as well - I wish I wasn't associated with this at all," he said.

"It's absolutely taken my life and my family's life away."

Sarah Frazer was one of thousands of people who have died on Australian roads in recent years.

Although the road toll had dropped in some states as recently as 2014, there has been a concerning spike in the number of deaths over the past 12 to 18 months.

Professor Brian Owler, a Sydney-based neurosurgeon who has been the face of road safety campaigns in NSW, said while there were a number of reasons to reduce road trauma, the costs incurred from accidents were an "important consideration".

"The costs of providing treatment, the resources that it takes up in terms of the operating theatres, our emergency departments and hospital beds, is also very significant," he said.

"It's important that we also make that investment, to make sure that we reduce the road toll to try and reduce not only the social and emotional burden that the community faces as a result of road trauma, but also the economic costs."

'We've hidden the consequences of road carnage'

The road toll has been of particular concern for police in the states where the numbers have jumped more than 10 per cent in the past 12 months.

In Victoria, someone is injured every two hours on the road, and a person dies every day and a half.

Assistant Commissioner Doug Fryer, from Victoria's Road Policing Command, said countless families and communities were grieving loved ones who should not have died.

"Road trauma, just in Victoria alone... the cost is anywhere between $3 [billion] and $4 billion. It's an extraordinary number," he said.

"But this is about lives, it's about real people, and you talk to anyone who's lost a loved one to road trauma, they simply do not get over it.

"We just need everyone to take this very personally.

"Even our own members, so the emergency services who turn up at these horrific scenes.

"Whilst they may not remember the names of the dead, they certainly never forget the faces that they've seen that have been ruined to road trauma."

In NSW, road crashes are now estimated to be costing the economy more than $7 billion every year, with $3.5 billion of that used to treat almost 12,000 people in the state's hospitals.

Mr Frazer questioned whether the current efforts to address the problem were working.

"You can imagine, if we had a plane crash every single month, losing 100 people on board, there'd be outrage," he said.

"But there's not, because we've hidden road safety or the consequences of road carnage from everyone's public view."

The National Road Safety Strategy is aiming for at least a 30 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries by 2020.

First posted January 02, 2017 08:07:05

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Road crashes 'costing Australian economy billions'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated January 02, 2017 09:53:36 Drivers across Australia are being urged to take care, with a rising road toll devastating thousands of families and costing the economy billions of dollars. There has been a concerning spike in deaths after record low numbers just a few years ago, sparking concerns about the effectiveness of road safety campaigns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The latest Australian road fatality data (March 2018) shows that:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home - Australian Road Safety Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Australian Road Safety Foundation will help to develop a sustainable strategy for reducing the social and economic costs of road crashes, as well as providing a platform for future research and advocacy programs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Road Safety Strategy is based on the Safe System approach to improving road safety. This involves a holistic view of the road transport system and the interactions among roads and roadsides, travel speeds, vehicles and road users.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Australia's #1 Legal Questions Forum | LawAnswers.com.au

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Traffic Law forum is for Australian legal topics related to traffic law in Australia, including drink driving (DUI), drivers licence issues, Australian road rules, traffic cameras, speed cameras, speeding fines and the SDRO and car park issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
case study to P.J parents influence juvi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Citizens perceptions of aggressive traffic enforcement strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Attitudes and Experiences of People Who Use Cannabis and Drive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Traffic Enforcement System

Traffic Enforcement Systems are defined here as a technical recording device that is triggered automatically by a traffic

Traffic Enforcement Systems are defined here as a technical recording device that is triggered automatically by a traffic violation, so that information about the violating vehicle is recorded, making possible the subsequent identification of the vehicle for the purpose of sanctioning the owner or driver. These punitive cameras are used to automate part of the process used to ticket and fine motorists that are disregarding regulations and break the law. We have Research & Development department; offering a truly complete turnkey operation for traffic management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Traffic Enforcement System - ATT Systems Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Traffic Enforcement Systems are defined here as a technical recording device that is triggered automatically by a traffic violation, so that information about the violating vehicle is recorded, making possible the subsequent identification of the vehicle for the purpose of sanctioning the owner or driver.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NORMAN - Norman police have given more tickets to distracted drivers this year than last, and the year isn't even over yet.

According to 2017 texting and driving statistics released by NPD, since January, 61 tickets have been given to distracted drivers, including 34 in May and 10 in June. The 2017 total so far is 11 more than the total given in 2016.

"An individual driving at 55 mph that takes their eyes off of the road for the average amount of time it takes to send a text message, five seconds, will have driven the length of a football field without looking at the road," Norman Public Safety Information Officer Sarah Jensen said. "This level of inattention is extremely dangerous to the driver and those traveling near them on the roadway."

Some people are not aware Gov. Mary Fallin signed House Bill 1965 into law in 2015.

Despite the law, Norman Sgt. Tim Smith said most drivers attempt to justify texting while driving.

"Overall, it appears that the majority of motorists do not realize the true dangers that they are causing while texting and driving," he said.

The current law bans drivers from texting, instant messaging or emailing while the vehicle is moving. Those who are convicted of the crime are subject to a fine up to $100.

Norman Assistant City Attorney Rick Knighton confirmed, in regard to this particular law, that the city ordinance does not differ from state law.

Bill author Rep. Terry O'Donnell, R-Tulsa, said creating the law wasn't even on his radar until he knocked on predecessor Sue Tibbs' door on a hot summer day.

"Tibbs invited me into her home and gave me some water," he said. "She asked me if I would look into texting and driving if I was elected.

"Although that was not an issue on my radar screen, I had daughters that were 14 and 16 at the time, and I realized how distracting the phone was to them. I also didn't have the heart to tell Tibbs no."

O'Donnell said getting the bill approved by his peers wasn't easy.

"I filed the bill once before, but I didn't have support for it, so I withdrew it. The next year I filed it again, and - as it was going through the process - unfortunately, [Nicholas Dees and Trooper Keith Burch] got involved in an accident," O'Donnell said. "It's human nature that when the phone rings, you want to look at it. I think a lot of people think they can manage [texting and driving], and most independent people don't like being told what to do."

Dees and Burch were struck by a vehicle while investigating an overturned tractor-trailer on westbound Interstate 40 just east of Shawnee in 2015. Dees died at the scene and Burch was seriously injured.

O'Donnell and OHP Lt. Kera Philippi said the wreck brought more attention to the issue, but it came at a price.

"Too many times, we see lives lost or injuries that change lives forever," Philippi said. "Statistics show that texting drivers are nearly 23 times more likely to be involved in a traffic collision. That is not a number we are willing to accept, and neither should drivers. We will continue to enforce this violation because lives depend on it."

Steven Wayne Clark, 32, of Cushing, the driver of the vehicle that hit the troopers, admitted to using his phone just prior to the collision.

Oklahoma court records show Clark was convicted Dec. 17, 2015, of first-degree manslaughter. He was sentenced to five years in prison and seven years probation.

Jensen said NPD encourages drivers to avoid any distractions while behind the wheel.

"It is best to for motorists to stay off their phone while driving, whether that be by putting their cell phone out of reach in the backseat or glove box or by placing it on silent to remove any temptation to respond to a text message," Jensen said. "If a motorist must respond to a message, we suggest that they safely pull off of the roadway into a parking lot or wait until they reach their destination."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Law enforcement asks residents to stop texting and driving

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NORMAN - Norman police have given more tickets to distracted drivers this year than last, and the year isn't even over yet. According to 2017 texting and driving statistics released by NPD, since January, 61 tickets have been given to distracted drivers, including 34 in May and 10 in June.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Traffic enforcement has long been a staple of police organizations as an essential service to the public. It is widely considered one of the most effective tools to combat and deter traffic infractions and crime. Recently, society has made demands and outcries for police to find remedies to the rising increase in aggressive driving and crime rates.

Many departments have dedicated resources into improving output from traffic units in order to vamp up public safety on the roadways. In turn, focus has shifted toward specialized assignments or task force units (directed patrols) designed to address targeted traffic problem areas, impede drug trafficking, and hobble other organized crime. If you consider how we use motor vehicles for conveyance and transport in our daily lives, endless possibilities are also sought after in the criminal world.

Most people are familiar with the axiom of traffic stops being "routine" and perhaps disregard their complexity and dynamic potential. They are far from being classified as standard or ordinary and can rapidly change in scale ranging from a simple citation for speeding to an ambush on the officer. Let's take a look at the complexity by dissecting several fragments making up the experience of a traffic stop from the officer's and citizen's points of view.
PROTOCOLS
Traffic stops, in a general sense, are quite similar in procedure across the country. Standard training practices for traffic enforcement are included in all police academy curriculum and field training. Each officer develops their own style and dialogue with a driver, however, all of them include: (1)an approach; (2)an introduction and explanation; (3)license, insurance, and registration requests; (4)wants/warrants inquiry; (5) declaration of a warning or citation decision; and (6) a closure-all completed within an average time of 20 minutes. Protocols are facilitated by the officer who prefers cooperation from the motor vehicle driver. Thus, the procedures are designed to make the stop as efficient and expedient as possible to lessen the inconvenience to a driver. This is considered a detention, temporary in nature, and is a somewhat tense situation for both the officer and driver/passengers. Motor vehicle operators are required to provide a driver's license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration upon request from the officer.
PERCEPTIONS AND EXPECTATIONS
Objectivity versus subjectivity has long been placed heavily as a demand on law enforcement and weighs on their integrity. It's a hot topic whether officers are viewed as fair and equitable and ranks high on the list of priorities for public confidence in a department. In fact, it becomes very crucial for officers who do have discretion, to be objective. How is this possible when a human is making a decision based upon subjective encounters? Sometimes it is difficult, but officers are to exclude bias when making decisions or solving problems. Not only is it a public mandate for officers to be objective and fair, but department supervisors expect officers to do just that in their daily decision making. Can officers possibly stop every infraction they observe and treat each police contact exactly the same? No. Perfection is not possible.

Stops are based upon observing a violation and being able to make a traffic maneuver to intercept them without being reckless or impeding other traffic. If an officer does not see a violation, obviously a suspect driver may avoid detection. This can occur from time to time. Police may also be on their way to another call and the violation they observe does not outweigh the call they are responding to, so they must dismiss it. Not all important or potentially urgent calls are code 3 (emergency) runs. In all fairness, we often do not know what they have been dispatched to or are observing from inside their patrol car. Secondly, each police contact is unique and separate from the one prior; therefore each stop cannot be conducted or concluded in exactly the same way.
CONSEQUENCES
What are the consequences of breaking a traffic code? Citation or arrest: depending on the magnitude of the offense. Collateral damages are a fine and/or a possible court appearance. In some cases it also includes a point on your driving record, perhaps a mark on reputation, and insurance rate increases. Every motor vehicle operator is mindful of the repercussions of a violation.

Although traffic stops are a type of brief detention, they do not result in arrest unless there is a more serious violation of traffic or criminal code other than running a red light, for instance. Infractions can have assigned fine and penalty scales which can categorize each cited individual in the same fee schedule if they choose to pay the ticket. They do not allow a person to have a jury trial. A person wishing to have a court appearance leaves the outcome up to a judge. More serious violations can be classified as misdemeanors and have higher fines, penalty scales, and jury or bench options for court procedures. Officers may also issue warnings which do not require any action from the driver, but are designed to deter future infractions.
FROM BEHIND THE WHEEL
Is it true most citizens view speeding and other traffic infractions as a public hazard and danger to their safety? Yes, I would say with certainty this is mostly true of public opinion. Many studies have been conducted on this topic and can be researched for more detailed statistics.

No one likes a traffic citation. When a person feels the laws are there for public safety, yet outraged when they receive a citation for a violation, their behavior is typical of an average citizen. Even though some complaints are often immediately directed toward the issuing officer, most people are disappointed in themselves.

Breaking down the psychology of a police contact would involve a lengthy discussion. In brief, society keeps a watchful eye on public policy, government, and issues which concern their everyday lives. Reputation and driving record are two matters most pride themselves in maintaining to avoid license suspension and insurance rate increases. Being issued a citation is deflating to one's self-esteem and integrity which distresses most in the initial phase of emotions. Secondly, fines and insurance rates are affected by substantiated findings of fault and may impact a person's driving record.

Still, people know the consequences and yet, some blame the police at times instead of evaluating their own malfeasance or taking responsibility for their own actions. A second common complaint against an officer is for rudeness; if the officer did not present themselves in a pleasant manner to the driver or the driver perceived the officer as rude. Officers realize a traffic stop is not perceived as a pleasant experience for any driver which means it is paramount they are professional each time.
DISCRETION
Who gets a warning versus the person who receives a citation? What influences officer discretion and if so, does that take away from the objectiveness? Many factors affect police discretion which include but are not limited to (in no particular order of importance): (1) suspect attitude and demeanor, (2) attitude and demeanor of self, (3)police standard requirements ,(4)traffic enforcement strategies , (5) public safety concerns, (6) productivity (measurements), (7) evaluations,(8)environmental and surrounding influences, (9)justice system variables such as court overflow, revenue,(10) city council directives, (11)suspect's record, (12)personal life interferences, (13)situational circumstances, (14)internal department structure and expectations, (15)supervisor directives, (16)public scrutiny, (17)suspect's stress, and (18)officer's stress. These integral components are just a few of the "static noises" around a simple traffic stop, influencing an officer's decision. At the same time, an officer must depersonalize his or her decision and compartmentalize personal conflicts and stress. Bias must be eliminated from the officer's evaluation of the stop and he or she should execute the decision in a fair manner.
RISKS TO OFFICER AND PUBLIC
A traffic stop is a risky and complex duty for an officer. Officers must not disregard the danger it attaches to both themselves and citizens. The maneuver of the stop, placement of vehicles, location, lighting, and weather, etc., are all factors police take into consideration before deciding to make a stop in order to maintain safety. Proper police tactics are instructed and emphasized with repetition in police academies and field training.

Not only does a stop involve procedures, proper police tactics, but it entails guiding human behavior which is surrounded by several internal and external influences unknown to the officer. A person is automatically agitated or nervous once they are pulled over by a police officer. Suspect emotion and intentions are two of the most prolific reasons why traffic stops are very dangerous for law enforcement. If this danger intensifies or moves beyond the scope of a simple traffic stop, the public then becomes endangered as the situation escalates. There are copious amounts of threatening elements surrounding a stop and it is certainly impossible for an officer to mitigate every one.

Proximity of the exposed officer on approach outside the suspect vehicle compared to the logistical advantage of the driver and passengers raises the level of risk for ambush. Potential discoveries of illegal activity, warrants, and the unknown manufactures inside a vehicle alert the officer's constant watchful eye and defensive posture. Situational awareness and emotional intelligence are of the utmost importance. An officer's apathetic behavior and professionalism are skill sets which draw compliance and can defuse an emotional or volatile situation.

Environmental surroundings, ongoing traffic, linear vehicles, and an open roadway add to the risks of injury. Precautions and best practices need to be taken into account to prevent the officer or driver from getting injured or killed due to vehicle crashes, sideswipes, or weather affecting the condition of the roadway. An officer must be able to identify risk and gauge threat levels while reacting appropriately. Again, they must constantly scan, be alert, and assess their situation for survival and safety for themselves and others.
BY DESIGN
Traffic enforcement is designed to promote public safety by stopping a violation, reducing crashes, and enhancing public enjoyment. At the same time, it deters other drivers from committing an infraction and historically changes behavior of the ticketed driver and onlookers. Presence of law enforcement is on every driver's mind on any roadway. In conjunction, safe driving techniques and unsafe alternatives and consequences keeps most vehicle drivers in a "checks and balances phenomenon" while operating a motor vehicle.

Traffic stops are the most common interaction a citizen will have with a police official. To some, it may be the only contact they encounter with law enforcement. These experiences influence citizens' perceptions of law enforcement, department directives, and public opinion.

Are traffic infractions frivolous and do police organizations focus too much attention to this matter? On the contrary, many communities report law enforcement organizations do not devote enough tactical attention to traffic operations. In fact, most departments have room for improvement and enhanced enforcement of traffic codes. This can be explored by analyzing traffic crashes, defining problem areas, observing traffic congestion, speed concerns, and identifying aggressive driver behavior. Administrators evaluate their programs and resources accordingly to keep updated and apprised of flux in community specific issues and traffic/crime hot spots. With these considerations, a community can evaluate where traffic enforcement is successful or where additional operations are needed.

Traffic flow, safe operation of motor vehicles in masses, and efficient infrastructure are direct parallels to public safety. Law enforcement officials engaged in active random and directed patrols and implemented traffic enforcement assist with public safety and traffic efficiency. Traffic units also reduce criminal activity through stops and contacts. Without traffic enforcement, police work would operate at a detriment of effectiveness due to our reliance on transportation and public safety would be jeopardized.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Basic Composition of Traffic Enforcement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Traffic enforcement has long been a staple of police organizations as an essential service to the public. It is widely considered one of the most effective tools to combat and deter traffic infractions and crime. Recently, society has made demands and outcries for police to find remedies to the rising increase in aggressive driving and crime rates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How traffic law enforcement can contribute to safer roads (PIN Flash 31)

Exceeding speed limits, drink or distracted driving and failure to wear a seat belt are still the leading causes of death and serious injury on European roads. Despite legislation designed to prevent all four, many drivers involved in fatal traffic collisions clearly failed to comply with one or more road traffic laws at the time of their collision.

Improvements in traffic law enforcement should be part of an integrated road safety policy and have been shown to lead to rapid reductions in deaths and injuries when applying best practice.

Speeding
Excessive or inappropriate speed is a primary factor in about one third of road deaths and an aggravating factor in many more.

Speed enforcement will remain essential as long as the speed problem is not solved in a structural way by road design, engineering measures and in-vehicle technology.

Efficiency of speeding enforcement is enhanced if the handling of fines for detected violations is largely automated. Efficiency is also higher if the vehicle owner and not the vehicle driver is held liable, since it is easier and faster to identify the owner than the driver.

It is argued that speed enforcement is most appropriate on specific road stretches where collisions are concentrated. Such targeted action brings road safety benefits in the most dangerous road sections and makes it easier to explain the reasons of enforcement to the general public.

In general, there appears to be an overall increase in speed offences detected throughout the EU, mainly due to the extension of safety camera networks, in particular in Central and Eastern European countries.

Out of the 20 countries that could provide data on the number of speeding tickets issued over the period 2010-2015, the number went up in 12 countries, while 8
registered a decrease. The number of speeding tickets has increased on average by 14% annually in Serbia, 10% in Lithuania and Estonia, around 9% in Poland, 8% in Portugal, 6% in Croatia and Denmark. All except two of these countries achieved better-than-average reductions in the number of road deaths over the same period. Serbia and Estonia have also reduced road deaths but not better than the EU average. The annual number of speeding tickets dropped in Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland, countries that have also witnessed some of the biggest slow-downs in reducing road deaths since 2010.

Similarly, the UK and Germany have also seen a big slow-down in reductions of road deaths. In the UK, the number of tickets reduced after 2010 when the new government made cuts that affected enforcement levels; but ticket numbers have started to increase again.

As many as 70% of speeding offenders detected by safety camera do not receive a speeding ticket in Poland and Sweden and 29% of all speeding offenders in France. It is highly possible that other EU countries are facing similar challenges to follow up and sanction automatically-detected violations, but the majority of EU countries are either not collecting the data or not making them public.
Drink driving
While drink driving is relatively infrequent compared to other traffic offences, it is highly dangerous. It is estimated that up to 2% of kilometres travelled in the EU are driven with an illegal Blood Alcohol Concentration but around 25% of all road deaths in the EU are alcohol related. Out of the 14 countries that could provide data over the period 2010-2015, the number of alcohol checks increased in seven countries and seven registered a decrease. The number of alcohol road-side checks grew by 39% each year in Poland, 24% in Estonia and 12% in Portugal. The number of alcohol checks dropped by 13% annually in Sweden, 10% in Cyprus and 5% in England and Wales. Among the countries that could provide up-to-date data, police in Estonia, Poland and

Finland are most active in the fight against drink driving with respectively 677, 466 and 279 driver checks per thousand inhabitants in 2015. The number of checks are also high in Austria (189) and Slovenia (156). The lowest probability of being checked for drink driving is in Lithuania and Romania with less than one hundred in a thousand inhabitants being checked for drink driving per year.

Research has shown that increased drink driving enforcement contributes to a decrease in drink driving deaths and injuries. Increases in the number of checks in 2014 and 2015 in Poland are starting to pay off.
Seat belt use
Despite the legal obligation to wear a seat belt across the EU28, seat belt use in cars in the EU is estimated to be only 90% for front seat and 71% for rear seat passengers in countries that are monitoring wearing rates. ETSC estimates that 900 deaths could have been prevented in 2012 if 99% of occupants had been wearing a seat belt, a rate that could be reached with seat belt reminders (SBR) on all car seats. Seat belt wearing rates are highest in Germany, Sweden, GB and Estonia with 98% passengers in the front seat belting up. Seat belt wearing rates in front seats remain as low as 61% in Croatia, 62% in Italy, 74% in Serbia, 82% in Latvia and 83% in Hungary.

Disparities between countries are even bigger when it comes to wearing seat belts on rear seats: from 98% in Germany and the Czech Republic to only 1% in Croatia. Wearing the seat belt on rear seats is still exceptional in Serbia with 7% rear seat passengers belting up, in Italy (15%) and in Lithuania (33%). The biggest increase in the last five years in rear seat belt wearing rates were recorded in Austria, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Sweden. Despite the fact that the proportion of killed vehicle occupants who were not wearing their seat belt is disproportionately high, seat belt enforcement is not a primary target for the police in many EU member states. In some of them, it is still considered a minor violation that may not even be recorded or incorporated in demerit point systems.

The number of tickets for failure to wear a seat belt is highest in Serbia and Romania with 25 and 24 tickets per 1000 inhabitants, followed by Croatia with 23 tickets per 1000 inhabitants and Slovenia with 20 tickets per 1000 inhabitants last year.
Mobile phone use while driving
Distracted driving is a growing problem in road safety. Data on how many collisions involve distraction is poor but experts estimate that it plays a role in 10-30% of them. Studies also suggest that drivers using a mobile phone are approximately four times more likely to be involved in a collision than a driver not using a phone. There is a long list of distractions that undermine the driver's or the rider's ability to perform the driving task, but the use of mobile phones while driving appears to be widespread and growing.

Police enforcement, combined with publicity campaigns, has the potential to reduce illegal use of a mobile phone while driving. But even though the phenomenon of using a mobile phone while driving is widespread, enforcement levels remain low. Out of 19 countries that provided data on the number of tickets for illegal use of mobile phone over the period 2010-2015, 8 countries saw an increase and 11 countries saw a decrease in the number of tickets. The number of tickets for illegal use of mobile phones increased by 22% each year on average in Poland over the period 2010-2015, by 17% in Croatia, 12% in Serbia and 8% in Greece. In contrast, ticket numbers have declined over the same period in the Netherlands by 22% on average each year and by 20% in Cyprus.

More work is needed to improve the systematic collection of mobile phone use in collision data to assess the extent and distribution of a growing problem of driver distraction in countries. This will allow prevention efforts to be effectively targeted.
The Cross Border Enforcement Directive: work in progress
According to the European Commission, non-resident drivers account for approximately 5% of road traffic in the EU, but a foreign-registered car is around three times more likely to commit a traffic offence than a domestically-registered one.

The proportion of offences by non-resident road users is difficult to evaluate as only Belgium, France, Hungary, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland and Spain have sent data. Offences committed by foreign-registered vehicles represented 13% of all speeding offences detected by safety cameras over the period 2013-2015 in Poland. Differences in the proportion of non-resident drivers depend on the geographical position of the country (i.e. whether or not it is a transit country), the level of tourism in the country and the type of road section (international or local route). As many as 99% of all offences committed by non-resident drivers detected by safety cameras were followed up in Hungary, 96% in the Netherlands and 73% in
France. Only 8% were followed up by the Lithuanian authorities in 2015, 11% in Poland, 35% in Spain and 41% in France.

**Data on drink driving tests from Ireland has been removed from this report. ETSC was informed by the Irish Road Safety Authority (RSA) in March 2017 that these data were not accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How traffic law enforcement can contribute to safer roads (PIN Flash 31) | ETSC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How traffic law enforcement can contribute to safer roads (PIN Flash 31) Exceeding speed limits, drink or distracted driving and failure to wear a seat belt are still the leading causes of death and serious injury on European roads.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Traffic Law Enforcement: A review of the literature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Monash has achieved an enviable national and international reputation for research and teaching excellence in a short 50 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Policing and social identity procedural justice inclusion and cooperation between police and public

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
La Vigne, N., Fontaine, J., & Dwivedi, A. 2017. How Do People in High-Crime, Low-Income Communities View the Police?. Urban Institute. https://nnscommunities.org/uploads/how_do_people_in_high-crime_view_the_police.pdf

Tyler, T., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why Do People Help the Police Fight Crime in Their Communities?. 6 Ohio State J. Crim. L. 231.

Bradford, B., Sergeant, E., Murphy, K., & Jackson, J. (2015). A Leap of Faith? Trust in the Police Among Immigrants in England and Wales. Br J Criminol 2017; 57 (2): 381-401. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azv126.

Meares, T. (2009). The Legitimacy of Police Among Young African-American Men. Marquette Law Review, 92(4) 651-666

Bradford, Ben. (2014). Policing and Social Identity: Procedural Justice, Inclusion and Cooperation Between Police and Public. Policing and Society, 24:1, 22-43, DOI: 10.1080/10439463.2012.724068

Meares, T.L., Tyler, T.R. & Gardener, J. (in press). The two different worlds we live in: Lawfulness and perceived police misconduct.

Kohler-Hausmann, I. (2014). Managerial justice and mass misdemeanors. Stanford Law Review, 66(3), 611-692.

The Sentencing Project. Disproportionate minority contact.

Tyler, T.R. & Jackson, J. (2014). Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal Authority: Motivating Compliance, Cooperation and Engagement. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 20, 78-95.

David Von Drehle, Alex Altman (2014, September 1). Inside the Tragedy of Ferguson. Time Magazine.

Lee, C.G., Cheesman, F., Rottman, D., Swaner, R., Lambson, S., Rempel, M. & Curtis, R. (2014). A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center Final Report. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.

Kates, Graham (2014, September 6). The crisis of confidence in police-community relations. The Crime Report.

Jackson, Jonathan, Bradford, Ben, Kuha, Jouni and Hough, Mike (2014) Empirical legitimacy as two connected psychological states in Mesko, G. and Tankebe, J., (eds.) Improving Legitimacy of Criminal Justice in Emerging Democracies. London: Springer.

Durrant, M.B. (January 27, 2014). 2014 State of the judiciary address: Utah State Courts.

Elijah Anderson (2014, August 13). What caused the Ferguson riot exists in so many other cities, too. The Washington Post.

Kates, Graham (2014, September 5). Melekian: Give beat cops a voice in community policing. The Crime Report

Meares, T.L. (2014, August 22). Ferguson's schools are just as troubling as its police force. New Republic.

Rosenfeld, R., Fornango, R. (2014). The Impact of Police Stops on Precinct Robbery and Burglary Rates in New York City, 2003-2010. Justice Quarterly, 31, 132-158.

Tyler, T.R. (March, 2014). Legitimacy and procedural justice: A new element of police leadership. Police Executive Research Forum.

Anderson, Elijah (2014, August 13). What caused the Ferguson riot exists in so many other cities, too. Washington Post.

La Vigne, N. G., Lachman, P., Rao, S., Matthews, A. (2014). Stop and Frisk: Balancing Crime Control with Community Relations. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Tyler, T.R., Fagan, J. & Geller, A. (2014). Street stops and police legitimacy: Teachable moments in young urban men's legal socialization. New Haven: Yale Law School.

United States Department of Justice (June 12, 2013). Statement of interest of the United States in Floyd v. City of New York. In United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

Levin Wheller, Paul Quinton, Alistair Fildes & PC Andy Mills. (2013). The greater Manchester Police procedural justice training experiment. UK: College of Policing.

Wemmers, J.M. (2013). Victims' experiences in the criminal justice system and their recovery from crime. International Review of Victimology, 19, 221-233.

Reisig, M.D., Tankebe, J. & Mesko, G. (2013). Compliance with the law in Slovenia: The role of procedural justice and police legitimacy. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research, 20(2), 259-276.

Goldstein, J. (August 12, 2013). Judge Rejects New York's Stop-and-Frisk Policy. The New York Times.

Murphy, K. (2013). Does procedural justice matter to youth? Policing and Society, 25(1), 53-73.

Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E. & Manning, M. (2013a). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 245-274.

Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J. Sargeant, E. & Manning, M. (2013b). Legitimacy in policing: A systematic review. Oslo, Norway: The Campbell Collaboration

Listwan, S.J., Sullivan, C.J., Agnew, R., Cullen, F.T. & Colvin, M. (2013). The pains of imprisonment revisited: The impact of strain on inmate recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 30(1), 144-168.

Kopenovich, S., Yanos, P., Pratt, C. & Koerner, J. (2013). Procedural justice in mental health courts: Judicial practices, participant perceptions, and outcomes related to mental health recovery. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36, 113-120.

Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, B. & Hold, K. (2013). Just authority?: Trust in the police in England and Wales. London: Routledge.

Jackson, J., Huq, A.Z., Bradford, B. & Tyler, T.R. (2013). Monopolizing force? Police legitimacy and public attitudes toward the acceptability of violence. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 19(4), 479-497.

Floyd et al v. The City of New York, Opinion and Order, 08 Civ. 1034 (SAS) U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. August 12, 2013.

Kohler-Hausmann, I. (2013). Misdemeanor justice: Control without conviction. American Journal of Sociology, 119, 351-393.

Statement of Interest of the United States. Floyd v. The City of New York, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Filed June 12, 2013.

Vickrey, W.C., Denton, D.G. & Jefferson, W.B. (2013). Opinions as the voice of the court: How state Supreme Courts can communicate effectively and promote procedural fairness. Harvard: Kennedy School.

Watson, A.C. & Angell, B. (2012). The role of stigma and uncertainty in moderating the effect of procedural justice on cooperation and resistance in police encounters with persons with mental illnesses. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 19(1), 30-39.

Tatar, J.R., Kaasa, S.O. & Cauffman, E. (2012). Perceptions of procedural justice among female offenders: Time does not heal all wounds. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 18, 268-296.

Stott, C., Hoggett, J. & Pearson, G. (2012). Keeping the peace: Social identity, procedural justice and the policing of football crowds. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 381-399.

Rosenbaum, D.P., & Lawrence, D.S. (2012). Teaching respectful police-citizen encounters and good decision making: Results of a randomized control trial with police recruits. Chicago: National Police Research Platform.

Papachristos, A.V., Meares, T.L., Fagan, J. (2012). Why do criminals obey the law? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102 (2), 397-440.

Myhill, A. & Bradford, B. (2012). Can police enhance confidence in improving quality of service? Policing and Society, 22(4), 397-425.

Murphy, K. & Cherney, A. (2012). Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 181-201.

Levi, M., Tyler, T.R. & Sacks, A. (2012). The reasons for compliance with law. In R. Goodman, D. Jinks & A. Wood (Eds.), Understanding Social Action, Promoting Human Rights. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kochel, T.R. (2012). Can police legitimacy promote collective efficacy? Justice Quarterly, 29(3), 384-419.

Hohl, K., Stanko, B. & Newburn, T. (2012). The effect of the 2011 London disorder on public opinion of the police and attitudes towards crime, disorder, and sentencing. Policing, 7(1), 12-20.

Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P. & Tyler, T.R. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051-1071.

Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E. & Tyler, T.R. (2012). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51, 1-31.

Tatar, J.R., Kaasa, S.O. & Cauffman, E. (2012). Perceptions of procedural justice among female offenders. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 18(2), 268-296.

Taylor, R.B. & Lawton, B.A. (2012). An integrated contextual model of confidence in local police. Police Quarterly, 15(4), 414-445.

Tomkins, A.J., Bornstein, B., Herian, M.N., Rosenbaum, D.I. & Neeley, E.M. (2012). Improving appearance rates. Court Review, 48, 96-106.

Mentel, Z. (2012). Racial Reconciliation, Truth Telling and Police Legitimacy. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice.

Tyler, T.R. (2011). Why people cooperate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Myhill, A. & Quinton, P. (2011). It's a fair cop? Police legitimacy, public cooperation and crime reduction. London, UK: National Policing Improvement Agency.

Leben, S. (2011). Considering procedural fairness concepts in the courts of Utah. Paper Presented at the educational conference for the Utah State Courts, Midway, Utah.

Komarovskaya, I., Maguen, S., McCaslin, S.E., Metzler, T.J., Madan, A., Brown, A.D., Galatzer-Levy, I.R., Henn-Haase, C. and Marmar, C.R. (2011). The impact of killing and injuring others on mental health symptoms among police officers. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45(10), 1332-1336.

Judicial Council of California (2011). Procedural fairness in California: Initiatives, challenges, and recommendations. San Francisco, CA: Center for Court Innovation.

Kennedy, D. M. (2011). Don't shoot: One man, a street fellowship, and the end of violence in inner-city America. New York, NY: Bloomsbury USA.

Jonathan-Zamir, T. & Weisburd, D. (2011). The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legitimacy: Findings from a Quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50 (1), 3-32.

Ward, J.T. (2011). Caught in their own speed trap: The intersection of speed enforcement policy, police legitimacy, and decision acceptance. Police Quarterly, 14, 251-276.

Hasisi, B. & Weisburd, D. (2011). Going beyond ascribed identities: The importance of procedural justice in airport security screening in Israel. Law and Society Review, 45(4), 867-892.

Wylie, L., Gibson, C., Brank, E.M., Fondacaro, M.R., Smith, S., Brown, V.E., & Miller, S.A. (2010). Assessing school and student predictors of weapons reporting. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8, 351-372.

Peffley, M. & Hurwitz, J. (2010). Justice in America: The separate realities of Blacks and Whites. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Missed Opportunities, Shared Responsibilities: Final Report of the Cambridge Review Committee (2010, June 15).

Kubrin, Charis E., Steven F. Messner, Glenn Deane, Kelly McGeever, Thomas D. Stucky (2010), Proactive Policing and Robbery Rates Across U.S. Cities. Criminology, 48(1): 57-97.

Wales, H.W., Hiday, V.A. & Ray, B. (2010). Procedural justice and the mental health court judge's role in reducing recidivism. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33, 265-271.

Hough, M., Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Myhill, A., & Quinton, P. (2010). Procedural justice, trust, and institutional legitimacy. Policing, 4(3), 203-210.

Alexander, M. (2011). The New Jim Crow. New York: The New Press.

Bayley, D. & Nixon, C. (2010). The changing environment for policing, 1985-2008. New Perspectives in Policing. Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management.

Tyler, T.R. (2009). Legitimacy and criminal justice: The benefits of self-regulation. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7, 307-359.

Tankebe, J. (2009). Self-help, policing, and procedural justice: Ghanaian vigilantism and the rule of law. Law and Society Review, 43(2), 245-270.

Reisig, M.D. & Mesko, G. (2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15(1), 41-59.

Murphy, K., Tyler, T.R., & Curtis, A. (2009). Nurturing regulatory compliance: Is procedural justice effective when people question the legitimacy of the law? Regulation and Governance, 3(1), 1-26.

Hinds, L. (2009). Youth, police legitimacy and informal contact. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 24(1), 10-21.

Hinds, L. & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 27-42.

Norman, J. (2009). Seen and Not Heard. Young People's Perceptions of the police. Policing, 3(4), 364-372.

Reisig, M.D. & Lloyd, C. (2009). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime. Police Quarterly, 12(1), 42-62.

Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., & Manning, M. (2009). Legitimacy in policing. Research Preview. Brisbane, Queensland: ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security.

Stuart, J., Fondarcaro, M., Miller, S.A., Brown, V. & Brank, E.M. (2008). Procedural justice in family conflict resolution and deviant peer group involvement among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(6), 674-684.

Murphy, K., Hinds, L. & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing and Society, 18(2), 136-155.

Murphy, K. & Tyler, T.R. (2008). Procedural justice and compliance behaviour: The mediating role of emotions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(4), 652-668.

Tyler, T.R. & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy And Cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231-275.

Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing & Society, 18(2), 136-155.

Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 6, 231-275.

Abuwala, R. & Farole, D.J. (2008). The effects of the Harlem housing court on tenant perceptions of justice. New York: NY Center for Court Innovation.

Tyler, T. R. (Ed.). (2007). Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Tyler, T.R., Sherman, L.W., Strang, H., Barnes, G.C. & Woods, D.J. (2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: The engagement of offenders' psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law and Society Review, 41(3), 553-586.

Lentz, S.A. & Chaires, R.H. (2007). The invention of Peel's principles: A study of policing "textbook" history. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(1), 69-79.

Hinds, L. (2007). Building police-youth relationships: The importance of procedural justice. Youth Justice, 7(3), 195-209.

Farole, D.J. (2007). The New York State Residents Survey:Public perceptions of New York's courts. New York: Center for Court Innovation.

Horowitz, J. (2007). Making every encounter count: Building Trust and Confidence in the Police, National Institute of Justice Journal, 256, 8-11.

Papachristos, A. V., Meares, T. L., & Fagan, J. (2007). Attention Felons: Evaluation Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(2), 223-272.

Justice in focus: The strategic plan for California Judicial Branch, 2006-2012 (2006). San Francisco, CA: Judicial Council of California.

Tyler, T.R. (2006b). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.

Tyler, T.R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57, 375-400.

Shute, S., Hood, R. & Seemungan, F. (2005). A fair hearing?: Ethnic minorities in the criminal courts. UK: Willan.

MacCoun, R.J. (2005). Voice, Control, and Belonging: The Double-Edged Sword of Procedural Fairness, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 171-201.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La Vigne, N., Fontaine, J., & Dwivedi, A. 2017. How Do People in High-Crime, Low-Income Communities View the Police? . Urban Institute. https://nnscommunities.org/uploads/how_do_people_in_high-crime_view_the_police.pdf Tyler, T., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why Do People Help the Police Fight Crime in Their Communities? . 6 Ohio State J. Crim. L.