Introduction
In Queensland, some of the beaches along the over 13,000 kilometres of coastline are deemed to be gazetted roads where the public are permitted to drive their private motor vehicles. The ability to drive on Queensland beaches presents a range of risks and challenges to drivers and law enforcement agencies alike. For example, the unique environmental complexities of beach roads such as tidal changes, partially submerged obstacles, ever changing surfaces, lack of marked lanes and the presence of wild animals. There are also numerous potential interactions with other vehicles (e.g., other motor vehicles, low flying planes that may land on the beach), other people (e.g., fishing, playing, swimming) and drivers being distracted by a spectacular vista (Anderson & Love, 2024; Queensland Government, 2024; Stevens & Salmon, 2016). In previous exploratory work by Anderson and Love (2024), it was identified that drivers’ offending on the beach was a growing concern and there were a number of identified social and situational factors that may contribute to some drivers’ being more willing to commit traffic offences on the beach compared with the roads. This offending behaviour is despite the same road rules applying to drivers on both approved beaches and Queensland roads. Additionally, the offences being committed are behaviours that the research demonstrates contribute to much higher crash risk and, in the event of a crash, increased crash severity (Høye, 2020).
There are a number of key driving offences that are often factors contributing to crashes both on the beach and on the road: speeding, drink driving, drug driving and seatbelt non-use. Each of these offences can significantly increase the crash risk of a driver, or in the case of seatbelt non-use, increase the injury severity in the event of a crash. Speeding is one of the most prevalent risky driving behaviours, with research indicating that it not only increases the likelihood of crashes but also the severity of outcomes (Aarts & Van Schagen, 2006). Similarly, drink and drug driving offences remain at the forefront of police enforcement, due to the impairing of cognitive and motor functions and negative impact on decision-making abilities (Berning et al., 2015). Seatbelt use significantly reduces injury or death risks in crashes, yet non-compliance persists due to factors like forgetfulness, discomfort or purposeful non-compliance (Fouda Mbarga et al., 2018; Høye, 2016). This study continues the focus on these common offences, but within the unique beach environment and also contrasts the reported offending between beach and road environments.
However, beach enforcement presents additional challenges to enforcement officers (i.e., police, park rangers) given the remoteness of these locations, peaks and troughs in vehicle numbers and the characteristics of the physical environment (e.g., lack of marked lanes, driving surface variability).
While this research was conducted in Queensland, Australia, the findings are likely to have broader implications for jurisdictions where similar off-road, non-traditional driving environments. For example, beach driving is permitted in the United States of America (e.g., Outer Banks, North Carolina), Canada (Sechelt, British Columbia) and New Zealand (e.g., Ninety Mile Beach), where local enforcement officers face comparable challenges in managing driver behaviour and enforcing traffic laws. These findings will also contribute to the global conversation on police legitimacy and the role of legitimacy in promoting road rule compliance. Given there are difficulties in traditional enforcement on beaches, alternate methods of achieving driver compliance may be required to improve safety.
A growing literature links views of police legitimacy held by members of the public with their rule or police-directed compliance (Mazerolle et al., 2012; Murphy et al., 2008; Murphy & Cherney, 2012; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler et al., 2014; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). In essence, legitimacy is the belief that police and other legal agencies have the right to enforce laws and that members of the public should comply with or obey the laws (Walters & Bolger, 2019). Particularly in the field of road safety, recent research identified a direct relationship between positive views of police legitimacy and adherence to traffic laws (Anderson et al., 2023). However, little research has examined the extension of legitimacy and road rule compliance outside of traditional police enforcement.
In addition to police, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Rangers play a notable role in the enforcement of traffic laws on Queensland beaches. While rangers have the power to enforce the road rules and issue monetary infringements, they are not able to issue demerit points like the police. To date, no study has examined views of legitimacy held by members of the public where two agencies have a role in road rule enforcement, namely police and rangers.
Limited published research has focused on comparing drivers’ self-reported offending between the beach and road environment. One exploratory study by Anderson and Love (2024), examined self-reported driving offences as well as perceptions of risk related to speeding, alcohol, drugs and not wearing seatbelts when driving on the beach compared with traditional road locations.
The aim of the current study was to explore beach offending based on the views of legitimacy held by drivers about the two agencies tasked with enforcement on the beach, the rangers and the police. The study had two objectives: 1) to examine and compare the self-reported offending of drivers in both beach and road locations and, 2) to determine if drivers with lower views of police or ranger legitimacy reported more offending in beach environments where both agencies enforce road rules.
Method
This study employed a cross-sectional design to investigate self-reported offending behaviours in beach and road driving environments and the relationship between views of enforcement legitimacy and driver offending behaviours. The cross-sectional approach allowed data to be collected from a large sample within a specific timeframe, providing insights into patterns and associations relevant to road safety and enforcement. The survey was structured to capture comprehensive data on demographic factors, driving experiences, self-reported compliance with traffic laws on the beach and on the road, and views of the legitimacy of enforcement agencies on the beach.
Recruitment and participants
Study participants were recruited through multiple mediums; online, in-person, and via traditional media. Due to the diverse nature of people who drive on Queensland beaches, this multipronged recruitment method was used to advertise the study to as broad a range of eligible people as possible. Participant inclusion criteria were: Queensland drivers who had driven on either the Noosa Northshore, Teewah, Double Island or Rainbow Beaches in the past five years.
Social media advertisements (i.e., Facebook, Instagram) included a link to the online survey. In-person recruitment took place at the Noosa Northshore Ferry, the primary method for gaining access to the beaches from the south. Drivers were approached as they were leaving the beach and were informed of the study, handed a flyer and a copy of the research information sheet. On the flyer was a QR code that linked to the online survey. Recruitment via traditional media included print, television and radio pieces that discussed road safety concerns on the beach, the research and provided interested drivers with information on how they could participate. All recruitment and participation in the survey occurred in March 2024.
Following completion of the survey, participants were able to opt-in to a prize draw for the chance to win 1 of 20 $50 gift cards. In total, 702 participants completed the survey. The survey took between 10 and 15 minutes to complete. The two most predominant age groups were 35-44 years (n = 156, 22.2%) and 18-24 years (n = 155, 22.1%), which is consistent with the earlier study (Anderson & Love, 2024). Detailed study participant characteristics are displayed in the Results section (Table 1).
Measures
The survey was designed to build on previous research (Anderson & Love, 2024) and further explore participants’ driving experience on beaches, their general level of compliance with the road rules, as well as their experience, perceptions and willingness to offend regarding speeding, drink driving, drug driving and seatbelts while in both beach and road environments. The current study also examined views of legitimacy held by drivers regarding the two enforcement agencies that patrol Queensland beaches: the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and the Queensland Police Service. At the commencement of the survey, basic demographic information was collected, such as gender, age, licence type, reason for travelling on the beach, and frequency of travel on the beach. Beach driving experience and general rule compliance were measured in four sections that covered specific offending (speeding, drink driving, drug driving, and seatbelts) followed by a section that obtained participants’ views of legitimacy in the police and park rangers.
Offence-specific items
The main body of the survey (21 questions) was divided into four sections that focused on: speeding, drink driving, drug driving, and seatbelt use. The speeding asked participants to disclose how often they exceeded the speed limit by various speed-ranges in both road and beach environments, for example, “When driving, how often do you exceed the speed limit by less than 10 km/h on the road” and “When driving, how often do you exceed the speed limit by more than 20 km/h on the beach”. Speed offending was divided into three ranges, Low-Range Speeding (1-10 km/h over the limit), Mid-Range Speeding (11-20 km/h over the limit), and High-Range Speeding (21+ km/h over the limit). Speeding items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (Never to Always). The drink and drug driving sections were almost replicates of each other, asking participants about their consumption patterns, and self-reported offending in each environment in the previous 12 months. If participants reported not consuming any alcohol or drugs in the previous 12 months, then the survey skip logic took them to the next section. The drink and drug driving offending items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (Never to Daily). The seatbelt offending item asked participants if they always wore their seatbelt in each environment (Yes/No).
Police and ranger legitimacy items
The final section of the survey comprised 7 legitimacy items which examined participant views of legitimacy about the police and rangers. These items were adapted from previous research (Anderson et al., 2023; Murphy et al., 2008) and included items such as “I respect the police”, “On the whole, police officers are honest”, and “I believe that police have a legitimate role to play in road safety enforcement on the beach”. The items selected focused on the respect, honesty, job performance and authority of each enforcement agency with regards to enforcement of traffic laws on the beach. These items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree). The term police was substituted for rangers to obtain views of legitimacy for the rangers. With no previous research having examined drivers’ views about police or ranger legitimacy on beaches, there was no benchmark for what may be deemed high or low views of legitimacy. For that reason, to categorise views of legitimacy into low and high, an average scale score was calculated, and the mean of the sample was used to divide the participants into two groups. Those below the mean were labelled as having ‘Low’ views of legitimacy, and those on and above the mean were labelled as having ‘High’ views of legitimacy. High and Low views of police and ranger legitimacy were determined and considered separately from each other.
Data analysis
Following the completion of data collection, the data were imported into SPSS (version 29) for analysis. Initially, descriptive statistics, including frequencies and means, were calculated to summarise participant characteristics and beach driving experiences. Prior to any analysis, assumptions for each technique were checked. While some results are non-normally distributed, based on the size of the sample, the use of a paired t-test remains a robust analysis methodology (Lumley et al., 2002). Paired samples t-tests were then conducted to compare self-reported offending behaviours in beach and road environments across different offence types, such as low-range, mid-range, and high-range speeding, drink driving, drug driving, and seatbelt offences. Effect sizes were interpreted using guidelines provided by Cohen (2013), in which d = .20 was small, d = .50 was medium, and d = .80 was large. Finally, chi-square tests were conducted to explore the relationship between views of legitimacy (both police and rangers) and offending behaviours, assessing how differing perceptions of enforcement legitimacy related to the likelihood of offending or non-offending among beach drivers.
Among the results, some differences in the total number of participants are noted, and this is due to the skip logic that meant some participants were not required to respond (e.g., had not consumed alcohol or drugs in the prior 12 months). There were also a small number of participants who did not respond to all items presented to them within the survey. Where paired sample tests were conducted, the total number of responses may be lower if participants did not respond to both the beach and road survey items for that offence type.
Results
Characteristics of participants
Of the total sample (N = 702), the majority (75.5%) were male, and the most common age group reported was 35-44 years of age (n = 156, 22.2%). The majority of the sample was classified as mature-age drivers who were 25 years or older (n = 537, 76.5%). Most of the sample held an open licence, followed by a provisional class licence, and one participant reported currently having a suspended licence[1]. The majority of the sample had over 7 years of experience driving on the beach (n = 411, 58.9%) and drove on the beach at least twice per year (n = 320, 45.7%). The descriptive statistics of participants’ demographic information and experience on the beach are displayed in Table 1. Not all categories or results will total 702 as some participants may not have answered a question or were excluded from a question based on their responses.
General offending on the beach and road
Table 2 presents distinct patterns of offending behaviour on the beach and road across various categories of road rule offences. Reported offending was categorised into offender and non-offender groups with those reporting “Never” committing the relevant offence in the prior 12 months categorised as non-offenders. All other frequencies of offending were categorised as offenders.
Low-range speed offending was reported by a large majority of the sample on the road (80.3%), compared to on the beach (66.4%). Mid-range speeding and high-range speeding offences followed a similar pattern, with a higher percentage of offenders on the road (46.6%, 19.5%) than on the beach (25.4%, 10.3%). Mid and high-range speeding differed from low-range speeding, with most participants shifting from being offenders of low-range speeding to non-offenders when it comes to mid and high-range speeding in both environments.
Drug and drink driving related questions were only displayed to participants that reported any alcohol consumption or illicit drug use in the prior 12 months. Reported offending rates related to impaired driving were notably higher on road (alcohol: 11.7%; drugs: 16.3%) compared to on the beach (alcohol: 6.4%; drugs: 11.7%). Although the rate of drug drive offending is higher than drink driving, the number of drink drive offenders was higher (n = 75 on the road, n = 42 on the beach) due to a larger portion of the sample consuming alcohol.
The greatest disparity was for seatbelt offences with more offending on the beach (6.4%) compared with only 0.9 percent on the road. The McNemar test results demonstrate significant changes in offending behaviour between road and beach conditions across most offences, particularly for low-range speeding (χ2=63.70, p<.001), mid-range speeding (χ2=90.55, p<.001), and seatbelt offending (χ2=31.11, p<.001), while no significant difference was observed for drug driving (χ2=1.56, p=.210).
Specific driver offending behaviours
Speeding
Examination of different speed offending ranges highlights a number of patterns between the beach and the road (Table 3, Figure 1). Across all speeding offence ranges, a larger percentage of participants responded ‘Never’ when driving on the beach, compared to on road. This indicates that overall, participants were more likely to engage in some frequency of speed offending on the road compared with the beach.
Low-range speeding was reported with similar frequencies in both environments as almost half respondents report they ‘Rarely’ speed (road: 45.8%; beach: 42.4%). Responses shifted in relation to mid-range speeding, with the majority of participants reporting they would never exceed the speed limit by between 10-20 km/h (road: 53.4%; beach: 74.6%). This response was similar for high-range speeding (never: road: 80.5%; beach: 89.7%). These results suggest that speeding, especially at higher ranges, is much less frequent at the beach than on the road.
A paired samples t-test was conducted to compare speeding behaviours in different environments (road and beach) across three speeding ranges: low-range, mid-range, and high-range (Table 4). Participants reported significantly higher instances of low, mid, and high-range speeding on the road compared to the beach, with statistically significant differences observed across all three speeding ranges. The Cohen’s 𝑑 values in the table indicate small to medium effect sizes for the differences in speeding behaviours between road and beach conditions (low-range, 𝑑=.29, mid-range, 𝑑=.26, high-range, 𝑑=.19), suggesting small to medium differences which may or may not represent practical differences.
Drink driving and drug driving
One of the first questions in the drink and drug driving sections of the survey was about alcohol or illicit drug consumption. Reporting on the prior 12 months, alcohol consumption was high (94.6%), compared to 21.1 percent of respondents who had consumed illicit drugs. Participants who reported they had not consumed alcohol (5.4%) or illicit drugs (78.9%) in the previous 12-month period, skipped the remaining questions relating to either substance. Of the participants who did respond, the majority reported never engaging in drink or drug drive offending behaviours, with higher compliance on the beach (drink driving, n=616, 93.6%; drug driving: n=128, 88.3%) compared to the road (drink driving: n=565, 88.3%, drug driving: n=118, 83.7%) (Table 5, Figure 2). While the proportion of drug driving offenders is higher, the number of offenders committing drink driving offences in greater in both environments. It is noted that very few of the participants reported engaging in these activities daily or weekly, with daily occurrences being rare in both settings.
Paired samples t-tests (Table 6) were conducted to determine if drink driving or drug driving behaviour differed by environment. When it came to drink driving, there was a statistically significant difference in the scores on the road and on the beach indicating that participants exhibited significantly lower instances of drink driving on the beach compared to the road. For drug driving, there was no significant difference between the scores on the road and on the beach.
Seatbelt offences
Participants were asked if they always wear their seatbelt on the beach and on the road. On the road, only 0.9 percent (n = 6) participants reported not always wearing their seatbelt either as the driver or a passenger in a motor vehicle. However, on the beach, 6.4 percent (n = 44) of participants reported not always wearing their seatbelt while either a driver or passenger within a motor vehicle. Of the 44 participants who reported not always wearing their seatbelt on the beach, approximately one-tenth (9.5%, n = 4) had received an infringement for not wearing a seatbelt, with the remaining offenders reporting nil punishment for not wearing a seatbelt in any environment.
Beach offending and views of enforcement legitimacy
Beach offending behaviours were dichotomised and categorised as either offenders or non-offenders for the purposes of this analysis. Views of Legitimacy items were used to create an adaptative mean score for both the rangers and the police. There was a highly statistically significant difference between views of legitimacy for police (M = 5.63, SD = 1.06) compared to rangers (M = 5.49, SD = 1.07; t(667) = -3.23, p<.001, d = -0.13). Using the mean score as a divide, participants were categorised into ‘Low’ and ‘High’ legitimacy for both rangers and police, separately, for the purpose of further analysis between views of legitimacy and offending.
Views of ranger legitimacy on the beach was examined for non-offenders and offenders using a Chi-Square Test for Independence (Table 7). Non-offenders held higher views of ranger legitimacy across all categories of offending behaviour.
In contrast, views of ranger legitimacy among offenders varied depending on the type of offence. For low and mid-range speeding offences, there was a mix of high and low views on ranger legitimacy. For other types of offences, such as high-range speeding, drink driving, and seatbelt violations, offenders predominantly held low views of ranger legitimacy. These results suggest a critical disconnect between offenders in these categories and the perceived authority of rangers that is likely to impact driver compliance and cooperation with rangers and their role of enforcement. A chi-square analysis revealed that, except for drug driving, all offending categories showed a significant relationship between offending status and views of ranger legitimacy. However, the level of statistical significance varied and provides clear evidence that the relationship between offending and views of ranger legitimacy differs by offence type.
A Chi-Square Test of Independence was conducted to analyse the relationship between offending status (offenders vs. non-offenders) and reported views of police legitimacy (low vs. high), revealing varying levels of significance (Table 8). Across all categories of offending measured on the beach, the majority of non-offenders held high views of police legitimacy. For the offender group, across most offence behaviours, more drivers reported low views of police legitimacy than high views. An exception was drink driving, which, for offenders, appeared to occur regardless of their views of police or ranger legitimacy. For all other types of offences, such as speeding, drug driving, and seatbelt offences, offenders predominantly held low views of police legitimacy. A chi-square analysis revealed a highly statistically significant relationship between offending status and views of police legitimacy for all levels of speeding. The relationship between drink driving and seatbelts and police legitimacy were not statistically significant. Due to the small number of drug driving offenders with high views of police legitimacy, a chi square analysis was unable to be conducted, instead, a Fisher’s Exact Test was conducted, and the association was not statistically significant (p=0.474).
Discussion
This study focused on drivers’ self-reported offending behaviours in both beach and road environments and the role of perceived legitimacy of enforcement agencies. Despite the growing interest in the nuances of driving behaviour, there is limited research that contrasts the self-reported offending of drivers in distinct environments, such as beaches and roads. Previous studies, including an exploratory study by Anderson and Love (2024), have initiated this further examination, but the scope and samples have been limited. Building on this preliminary research, the present study delved deeper into beach offending, examining how drivers’ perceptions of the legitimacy of enforcement agencies, specifically rangers and police, are related to their offending behaviour in beach and road settings. Specifically, this study set out to further investigate and compare the self-reported offending behaviours of drivers in both beach and road locations, and to examine whether drivers with lower perceptions of police or ranger legitimacy report higher rates of offending while driving on the beach.
Offending behaviours on the beach and road
Speeding
Self-reported speeding offending behaviour varied considerably between beach and road environments. The majority of drivers reported low-range speeding both on road (80.3%) and on the beach (66.4%) which is consistent with previous research that suggests that low range speeding is quite common and often habitual (Huang et al., 2023) and may have some level of social acceptability (Nieuwesteeg, 2012). For mid-range speeding, most drivers (74.6%) never exceeded the speed limit by 10-20 km/h on the beach compared to half (53.4%) on the road. Even greater numbers of drivers reported never speeding at high-range (beach: 89.7%; road: 80.5%). A comparison of reported speeding found that participants were statistically significantly more likely to commit speeding offences on road compared with the beach environment. This could be due to the range of additional risk associated with beach driving (Anderson & Love, 2024) or due to the more rudimentary driving conditions inherent in driving on sand compared to a sealed surface. Another explanation for the higher rates of speed offending on the road could be due to the high rates of punishment avoidance. Punishment avoidance refers to offending without punishment and is thought to embolden offending (Bates & Anderson, 2021; Piquero & Pogarsky, 2002). As mentioned above, the remoteness of the beach environment makes regular and sustained enforcement difficult, which could facilitate some experiences of punishment avoidance on the beach. However, the frequency of driving and offending on the road compared with the beach leads offenders to experience greater punishment avoidance on the road simply based on exposure which may contribute to the disparity in self-reported offending between the two driving environments.
Drink driving and drug driving
Most participants abstained from drink and drug driving, with rates of impaired driving higher on the road (drink driving: 11.7%; drug driving: 16.3%) compared to the beach (drink driving: 6.4%; drug driving: 11.7%). Notably however, drink driving had a higher frequency (but lower rate) of offenders than drug driving in both settings with many more drivers reporting alcohol consumption compared to illicit drug use. Statistical analysis identified a significant difference between the rates of drink driving on the road and on the beach, but not in the rates of drug driving. Based on previous research, the lack of statistically significant difference between road and beach offending could be attributed to drug driving being a symptom of illicit, addictive and habitual substance use rather than a deliberate traffic offence committed by a driver (Davey et al., 2005). While the drink driving results were statistically significant, this finding had a very small effect size indicating that the difference in driver offending between the two environments may be small. This indicates that similar rates of offending may be occurring on the beach where resources and enforcement strategies are not as readily available to detect and deter offending which could lead to serious injury or fatal crashes.
Seatbelt offending
Seatbelt compliance was high on the road, with almost all drivers (99.1%) always wearing a seatbelt. A notable finding was on the beach, where 6.4 percent of the sample reported that they do not always wear a seatbelt. This suggests that on the beach, environmental or sociological factors may be at play as drivers are more willing to drive without a seatbelt, compared to driving on the road. The reasons for this level of difference are not clear, given the inherent dangers of beach driving and the risk of sanction from police or rangers for such offending. One possible explanation for the higher rate of seatbelt offences on the beach may be rooted in reconceptualised deterrence theory. This theory suggests that the avoidance of punishment or low perceptions of punishment can embolden offending behaviour (Bates & Anderson, 2021; Freeman et al., 2021; Piquero & Pogarsky, 2002).
The increase in seatbelt offences on the beach may be due to fewer experiences with, or perceptions of punishment for not wearing a seatbelt. With 9.5 percent of beach seatbelt offenders having received an infringement for this offence, it is likely that the reduced perception of punishment emboldens people to commit the offence more frequently on the beach compared to the road. Previous research has also identified that drivers on the beach reported an increased perception of social acceptability towards offending (Anderson & Love, 2024). Further research could examine qualitatively why people are less likely to wear a seatbelt when driving on the beach, for example, being wet or sandy and not wanting the seat belt to rub, only travelling short distances back to their campsite, or the perception of ‘freedom’ at the beach.
Legitimacy and compliance
When examining the reported offending of drivers on the beach in relation to their views of legitimacy, results indicate that a relationship exists and this could be leveraged by police and rangers to improve compliance with the road rules. Based on the reported views of legitimacy, offenders are more likely to perceive the powers of rangers and police as less legitimate compared to non-offenders, who typically report high views of legitimacy. The results show that the perceived views of ranger legitimacy have a significant impact on compliance with low-range speeding and seatbelt offences, while the perceived views of police legitimacy impact compliance across all categories of speeding offences. These findings suggest that while the views of police legitimacy were significantly higher compared with views of the rangers, improving views of both ranger and police legitimacy could lead to meaningful reductions in beach-related offending.
The significant relationships identified between offending behaviour and views of enforcement legitimacy highlight the importance of maintaining and enhancing the perceived legitimacy of law enforcement agencies on the beach. Previous research has linked views of legitimacy with rule compliance among members of the public (Walters & Bolger, 2019), and specifically, views of police legitimacy with rule compliance on the road among young drivers (Anderson et al., 2023). Based on our understanding that when individuals perceive these authorities as legitimate, they are more likely to comply with laws and regulations (Varet et al., 2021; Walters & Bolger, 2019), future efforts by both police and rangers should seek to leverage this relationship. Community policing strategies that emphasise fairness, transparency, and engagement, core tenets of procedural justice, help build trust and legitimacy between members of the community and authorities (Mazerolle et al., 2012). Given the relationship identified in this study between views of legitimacy and self-reported offending, community policing strategies may be an effective strategy to reduce beach-related offending by improving views of ranger and police legitimacy.
Strengths and limitations
This is the first large scale study to examine the road of legitimacy on driver offending behaviour on the beach compared to on road. With over 700 respondents, over half of whom had extensive beach driving experience (7+ years), this study provides new insights into driver behaviours in this often physically challenging environment. Although gazetted roads, there has been little attention on driver behaviour on beaches, compliance with road rules and the role of driver perception on the effectiveness of enforcement agencies. This study provides important new evidence that can inform policy action to increase safe driving behaviours.
Despite these strengths, there were also a number of limitations. First, while self-reported data are an established and appropriate method to examine driver behaviour in road safety (Boufous et al., 2010), there is still likely to be a social desirability bias that influences some respondents to underreport their offending behaviours or overreporting of compliance. This bias may be overcome in future studies by comparing the self-reported rates of offending behaviours to data from police or rangers on infringement notices issued. Second, on reflection, the response wording for drink and drug driving items could be improved to more accurately represent the contextual frequency of the offending. More specifically, people are unlikely to drive on the beach every day so the use of response options such as “Every other month,” “Monthly,” “Weekly,” and “Daily” while maintaining consistency for comparison with the road environment, may not fully account for the infrequent nature of beach driving. Future research should consider alternative response formats, such as asking about offending behaviours in context with beach driving frequency. Third, while the study recruited a large, diverse sample, it was nonetheless a convenience sample and may not be representative of the entire population of beach drivers in Queensland, thus potentially limiting the generalisability of the findings. Before accessing a Queensland beach, drivers need to obtain a Vehicle Access Permit (VAP). Future studies could seek to use the VAP records as a sampling frame to then be able to determine the representativeness of their study population.
Conclusions
The findings of this study highlight somewhat similar patterns of offending on beaches and the roads. While seatbelt offending and speeding varied across the environments, similar offending for drink and drug driving were reported. A key finding of this study demonstrates that views of legitimacy in both police and rangers may play a role in a driver’s decision to comply with road rules on the beach. Drivers with higher views of legitimacy reported lower offending rates, suggesting that enhancing the perceived legitimacy of enforcement agencies operating in the beach environment could foster greater rule compliance. This study contributes to the growing knowledge base around unique environmental offending and the relationship between views of legitimacy and road rule compliance. Future research should continue to explore these dynamics to inform evidence-based policy and enforcement practices, ultimately contributing to safer driving environments in unique contexts such as Queensland’s beaches.
Author contributions
Levi Anderson led this project in the design, conceptualisation, execution, and publication. Michele Clark assisted with the design, conceptualisation, data collection, and publication.
Funding
This research was conducted by the Road Safety Research Collaboration, funded jointly by the Motor Accident Insurance Commission and the University of the Sunshine Coast.
Human Research Ethics Review
The study was conducted in accordance with the protocol was approved by the University of the Sunshine Coast Human Research Ethics Committee - Approval Number A242044.
Data availability statement
The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly or outside of the research team, so due to the sensitive nature of the research supporting data are not available.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
In Queensland, the Graduated Driver Licensing System allows licensure at the following minimum ages: learner licence, 16 years (supervised driving only); Provisional 1 licence, 17 years; Provisional 2 licence, 18 years and; Open licence, 20 years.