Logistic regression analysis for different driving frequency groups.….56

In the previous section we found that the need to drive, and to fulfill some activities played an important role in determining the compliance of ALLR offenders. However, even with the same needs, offenders with different characteristics or attitudes may still comply differently with ALLR. For example, an aggressive offender may have a lower level of compliance with ALLR than someone who is conservative. In practice, knowing which influential factors may significantly affect offenders’ compliance with this rigorous punishment can have value. The two logistic regression models were therefore hierarchically designed, to identify these influential factors. In Model 1, the almost same driving offenders were compared with all other offenders (i.e. the reduced driving offenders and the no-more-driving offenders) in terms of their characteristics. The almost same driving offenders were the group that practically ignored the ALLR punishment, while the reduced driving offenders and no-more-driving offenders represented the groups that complied with the punishment. The characteristics of the no-more-driving offenders were also compared to the reduced driving offenders in Model 2, in order to explore which offenders had absolutely complied with ALLR.

5.2.3.1. The findings from Model 1 – those who ignored ALLR punishment

For the purpose of formulating the binary problem, to distinguish who would continue to drive almost the same as before ALLR, the indicator variable of Model 1 was set to one if the offender was driving almost the same as before ALLR, and to zero for the other. Among the candidate variables the results showed that only the factors of age, income, penalty of incarceration, driving for work, driving for commuting and driving for shopping were significant in Model 1 (See Table 6). Offenders over 40 years of age were 82% less likely (odds ratio = 0.183) to drive with almost the same frequency, when compared to offenders under 40. Furthermore, offenders with a monthly income of over 30 000 NTD were

approximately three times more likely (odds ratio = 2.959) to drive with almost the same frequency, when compared to the offenders with a monthly income under 30 000 NTD.

The study results also showed that offenders who had been incarcerated were more than 15 times as likely (odds ratio = 15.567) to drive with almost the same frequency when compared to offenders who had never been incarcerated. This indicates that incarceration seemed to make offenders more likely to drive with almost the same frequency as before ALLR. This may be the case for the following reasons. First, offenders who had been incarcerated may be more aggressive than their counterparts; thus, incarceration had no effect on their driving habits. Second, about sixty percent of offenders were found guilty, but only twenty percent of those guilty offenders were incarcerated; the other guilty offenders had confessed their guilt and sough probation. The offenders who had been incarcerated may not have felt regret, making it unlikely they would change their driving habits, and so drove the same as usual. Third, a hit-and-run offence could be the result of aggressive speeding or because of fear of the consequence. Such offenders may have felt they had paid for their crimes by being incarcerated; therefore they would refuse to abide by the no-driving restriction under ALLR.

For the reasons for driving explanatory variables, the offenders who drove for working, commuting and shopping had an odds ratio of 7.855, 3.272 and 3.011, respectively, for driving almost the same, when compared to offenders who had none of these respective driving reasons. It was apparent that those ALLR offenders, who chose to continue operating a vehicle, did so mainly to carry out their working and commuting activities, as well as family shopping.

5.2.3.2 The findings from Model 2 – those who absolutely complied with ALLR

In Model 2, the indicator variable was set to one for the offender having given up driving after ALLR, and zero for the offender who was still driving but with significantly reduced

exposure, after ALLR. The study results showed that the age of the offender, whether the offender had been incarcerated or not, and the duration of ALLR were the three significant factors at α =0.05 to distinguish the no-more-driving offenders from the reduced driving offenders (See Table 6). The offenders aged over 40 were 1.88 times more likely (odds ratio = 1.879) to completely give up driving, when compared to offenders under the age of 40. The results also indicated that offenders who had been incarcerated were 3.5 times more likely (odds ratio = 3.571) to completely give up driving, when compared to offenders who had not been incarcerated.

Table 6: Estimated results for the two logistic regression models

Model 1

Almost same driving group vs. the others

Model 2

Completely gave up driving group vs. reduced driving group

Yes 2.745 .001** 15.567 (3.877-62.508) 1.271 .023* 3.571 (1.192-10.638)

No Reference Reference

Duration of ALLR

≤ 3 years Reference

>3 years -1.161 .000** .313 (.182-.539)

Reasons for Driving

Working 2.061 .000** 7.855 (3.650-16.908) Not applicable Commuting 1.185 .001** 3.272 (1.650 -6.488) Not applicable

Shopping 1.102 .009** 3.011 (1.314-6.900) Not applicable

Constant -3.211 .040 -.727 .483

* Significant at α=0.05; ** Significant at α=0.01

Finally, offenders whose licenses had been revoked for more than 3 years had 69% less likelihood (odds ratio = 0.313) of completely giving up driving than offenders whose licenses had been revoked for less than 3 years. Because driving while S/R can only be detected when the police stop the driver of a vehicle for committing another traffic offence (Voas and

Deyoung, 2002), it is likely to make the offenders to believe that there is little danger of being

caught (Knoebel and Ross, 1997). The longer the ALLR offenders had been without their drivers’ licenses, the less anxious they became and the lower their perceived risk of being stopped by the police. In addition, complying with a short revocation of their driver license may be relatively easy for most people, while a very long suspension of their driving privileges may be too much for them to endure. Both of the above reasons explain why the longer a license has been revoked, the less the ALLR offenders will refrain from driving.