Introduction
Road traffic crashes are a leading global cause of death and injury of people, particularly in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) where the majority (92%) of traffic crashes related fatalities occur (WHO, 2026). Pakistan is among those LMICs where road traffic crashes claim more than 40,000 lives annually (Manzoor et al., 2023). In addition, the injuries and disabilities that result from crashes impose significant social and economic burden on families. The economic cost alone is estimated at 1.6 billion USD annually (Hyder & Razzak, 2013).
A substantial proportion of road traffic crashes have been associated with behaviours that contravene traffic regulations (Ben Laoula et al., 2023). Human behaviour is widely recognised as a contributing factor in road traffic crashes (Topolšek et al., 2019). For example, Musa et al. (2020) investigated the factors responsible for a 41 percent increase in the road traffic crashes during the past decade in Malaysia and reported that drivers’ behaviours (e.g., carelessness, speeding) were a major contributing factor with more than half of the crashes (55%) resulting in fatalities. Similarly, Sumit et al. (2024) identified that behaviours like reckless driving and improper overtaking were among the major causes responsible for road traffic crashes in India. While in Spain, Febres et al. (2020) reported on driver behaviours that increased the likelihood of fatal and serious road injuries including not wearing a seat belt (12%) and driving while distracted (7%).
Human behaviours and road traffic rule violations
Empirical evidence shows that unsafe driving practices like speeding, recklessness, carelessness, aggressive driving, distracted driving and non-use of seat belts have contributed to a large proportion of crashes globally (Aqlatawna et al., 2025; Febres et al., 2020; Musa et al., 2020; Pakgohar et al., 2011). During COVID-19, in the United States of America (US) there was a 7.2 percent increase in the number of fatality crashes on the road linked to speeding and non-compliance like not wearing seat belts (International Transport Forum, 2021).
Age is also a factor in unsafe behaviour in crashes with a higher prevalence among young road users. Job and Wambulwa (2020) noted driver age is an important determinant of road crashes. Countries with a high proportion of young people in their population may face greater challenges in preventing crashes on the road related to risk-taking behaviours and greater exposure to the road travel. Jevtić et al. (2015) reported that young motorcyclists ride faster and have higher risks of severe injuries and death compared to car drivers.
Overall, road traffic crashes in Pakistan are associated with high-risk driving behaviours like careless driving (Shah & Khattak, 2013), speeding, racing with other vehicles, using a mobile phone while driving and failing to use seat belts (Irfan, 2024; Nadeem et al., 2025; Tahir et al., 2012). Further, among commercial drivers, human factors that contribute to crashes include speeding, reckless driving (Irfan, 2024) fatigue and use of drugs while driving (Mir et al., 2013).
In Islamabad, Pakistan, practices that may increase crash risk, such as improper lane usage (lane violation), disobeying traffic signals (signal jumping) and driving the wrong way (driving against prescribed direction of traffic) are frequently reported. These practices are formally recognised as traffic rule violations under the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and the National Highway Safety Ordinance, 2000 (enforced by Islamabad Traffic Police). For instance, disobeying traffic signals is explicitly listed as an offence in the Twelfth Schedule, S.No. 4 (Section 116 A) of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, which prescribes penalties for failure to comply with traffic signals. Similarly, improper lane usage is also identified as an offence under S.No 40 of the same Schedule. Driving the wrong way is likewise treated as a punishable violation under the Twelfth Schedule, S.No. 20 (Islamabad Traffic Police, 2023; The Pakistan Code, 2022b, 2022a).
Despite these legal provisions, such behaviours are frequently reported in everyday mobility and in certain contexts, are perceived as socially acceptable. This pattern is conceptualised in this study as road traffic culture (RTC). In this study, RTC is defined as the shared norms, meanings and practices through which road traffic rule violations may become socially tolerated and reproduced daily. Conceptually, RTC is grounded in transport sociology, while drawing insights from traffic psychology (risk-taking behaviours) (Igra & Irwin, 1996) and safety science (normalisation of deviance) (Sedlar et al., 2023) to explain individual and institutional dimensions of unsafe road practices.
Despite the scale of the problem, relatively limited scholarly work addresses how the road users and drivers interpret road traffic rule violations and why they are repeatedly engaged in such violations in Islamabad, Pakistan. Studies usually focus on statistical associations between human behaviour related factors and crash rates but overlook the cultural dimensions of road use. Addressing this gap, the present study investigated how road users and drivers perceive, rationalise and practice road traffic rule violations, with particular attention to the normalisation of risk as part of the city’s RTC.
Less maintained vehicles: an indicator of behavioural shortcomings
Motor vehicle condition and roadworthiness also influence the road traffic environment. Uzondu et al. (2022) emphasised that in LMICs, unsafe driving behaviours are compounded by inadequate motor vehicle maintenance. Poorly maintained motor vehicles add to road traffic vulnerability and poor vehicle maintenance can increase crash frequency (Getachew et al., 2024; Singh et al., 2016; Touahmia, 2018).
Failure to maintain a safe vehicle may indicate underlying behavioural shortcomings and may also arise from practical constraints including the cost of vehicle upkeep or limited access to maintenance services. Such constraints may be particularly relevant among younger road users and in LMICs, where financial barriers may impede regular vehicle maintenance. The Heinrich Domino Theory (1941) provides a foundational perspective for understanding how traffic crashes emerge from a chain of factors, including unsafe acts and conditions influenced by individual (e.g., attitudes towards maintenance, risk tolerance) and environmental factors (e.g., economic constraints, regulatory enforcement, access to servicing). Applied to road traffic safety, this implies that safety violations are not simply individual mistakes but are part of a broader social context where unsafe and risky practices become habitual and socially tolerated.
However, Heinrich Domino Theory (Heinrich, 1941) has been widely critiqued in contemporary safety science literature. Particularly, its attributions of a large proportion of crashes to human behaviour (88/10/2 ratio) has been questioned for its limited empirical bases and oversimplification. Heinrich proposed that the majority (~88%) of the crashes arise from unsafe human acts and the remaining arising from unsafe mechanical conditions (10%) or unavoidable causes (2%). In the current study, Heinrich framework is therefore used primarily as a foundational reference point rather than a definitive explanatory model. To provide a nuanced understanding, the analysis is complemented by a more contemporary perspective, the concept of normalisation of deviance (Sedlar et al., 2023) which better captures how risky behaviours become routinely accepted in everyday driving context.
Cultural normalisation of risk on roads
The concept of normalisation of deviance (Sedlar et al., 2023) has received increasing attention in transport sociology and behavioural safety. It proposes that repeated departures from safety rules can gradually become perceived as normal, particularly when these behaviours do not have immediate negative consequences. Over time, collective tolerance of these behaviours produces a RTC in which violations may lose some of their perceived moral or legal seriousness. Evidence from Pakistan suggests that this process may be observable in certain contexts. Violations such as speeding, improper lane usage, disobeying traffic signals, driving the wrong way and carelessness are widely reported on roads in Pakistan (Shah & Khattak, 2013; Tahir et al., 2012; Zaman, 2019). Coupled with inconsistent enforcement and limited traffic safety education and awareness, unsafe driving practices may become routinely reproduced in everyday mobility, contributing to a culture of normalised risk.
While this study adopted normalisation of risk as its central analytical concept for understanding how road users interpret and justify engagement in risky behaviours, it draws on normalisation of deviance (Sedlar et al., 2023) as a broader theoretical foundation. In this framing, normalisation of deviance describes the social and institutional processes through which unsafe practices become embedded within everyday mobility whereas normalisation of risk captures how individuals internalise these conditions and come to perceive risky behaviours as acceptable or routine. This interpretation is consistent with perspectives on risk-taking behaviour (Igra & Irwin, 1996), which suggest that repeated engagement in risky activities can alter individuals’ perception of risk over time. In this way, normalisation of deviance provides the social and institutional context within which normalisation of risk operates at the individual level.
Research gap
While previous studies have examined the types and frequencies of traffic violations in Pakistan (e.g., Abbas et al., 2024), relatively few have explored the subjective meanings drivers attach to these behaviours or how such violations become culturally normalised. Existing research is largely quantitative, focusing on statistical associations rather than interpretive understanding of how road users understand and justify risk. To address this gap, the current study adopted a qualitative, interpretivist approach to examine how drivers and commuters perceive, rationalise and normalise risk as part of their everyday mobility in Islamabad, Pakistan.
Through in-depth interviews with a diverse range of participants including general road users, commuters and drivers, this study moves beyond technical explanations of road traffic crashes to develop an interpretive account of everyday driving practices. By examining how risky behaviours are embedded within local mobility cultures, the study aims to generate insights that may inform more contextually grounded road safety interventions in Islamabad, Pakistan.
Methodology
This study is grounded in an interpretivist approach with a nominalist ontology stance and an interpretivist epistemology. This position assumes that social reality is shaped through human interpretation (Junjie & Yingxin, 2022; Neuman, 2014), which aligns with the aim of understanding how road users make sense of traffic rule violations in their everyday lives.
In Islamabad, the capital city of Pakistan, qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with the road users, including drivers and commuters. In-depth interviews were selected as they allow researchers to obtain rich, detailed accounts of participants’ subjective experiences and interpretations (Rutledge & Hogg, 2020). Islamabad was selected as the study site because of the high traffic volume with more than 600,000 vehicles operating in the city daily (Hayat et al., 2026), contributing to dense traffic conditions in which traffic rule violations may be more likely to be observed.
Selecting research participants
This study used non-random purposive sampling to select research participants. Purposive sampling helps researchers select cases that provide the most relevant information about a phenomenon under study (Creswell, 2015; Neuman, 2014). We identified research participants who were drivers of different categories of vehicles and general road users (commuters). These participants were purposively selected to ensure variation in vehicle type and road use experience. Of the 28 participants, 22 were drivers (car drivers, van drivers, bus drivers and truck drivers) (Table 1) and six were regular commuters (Table 2). Inclusion of only two female participants (one driver and one commuter) out of 28 research participants shows a substantial gender imbalance. It is consistent with the male-dominated nature of driving occupation in Pakistan. Both private vehicle drivers and commercial drivers (public transport) were included to capture different driving experiences. The aim was to obtain diverse perspectives to strengthen the depth of the findings rather than to achieve statistical representation.
To recruit participants, a team of researchers visited various locations including transport terminals, bus stops and residential sectors, covering a range of geographic zones. To ensure relevance to our research objectives, we applied specific inclusion criteria for drivers: least two years active driving experience and regularly drove in Islamabad. Both private and public transport drivers were included to capture diverse mobility experiences. Commuters were selected if they regularly travelled within Islamabad (at least three days per week) and had direct experience observing or interacting with traffic practices. These commuters were using public transport as well as private mode of transport including taxis and carpools. Participants without regular exposure to the city’s traffic environment were excluded from the study. Participants who provided informed consent were interviewed. Our field work took place between May 2023 and December 2023.
The sample size for this study was 28 participants. The sample size was guided by the principle of informational redundancy (Waller et al., 2015). In this study, we defined informational redundancy/saturation, as the point when two consecutive interviews within each category of participants yielded no subjectively new themes. For example, two private vehicle drivers provided similar responses regarding driving the wrong way. As Driver 3 stated “Many drivers prefer driving the wrong way rather than taking a proper route, even if the correct turn is only a short distance away”. Similarly, Driver 4 remarked, “Sometimes, we drive the wrong way when there is no traffic rush on the roads and I think there is no harm”. These similar responses suggested thematic repetition within this category, thereby marking informational redundancy for the theme “Driving the wrong way: a reflection of risk normalisation and institutional neglect.”
Interview guide and interviews
An interview guide was used to conduct interviews with the research participants. An interview guide provides a structured set of questions that allows researchers to address specific topics and offers participants an opportunity to respond in detail (Bryman, 2016). Given the differing perspectives of drivers and commuters, two versions of the interview guide were prepared with minor modifications to certain questions. The guides included questions about the types of traffic rule violations with particular focus on improper lane usage, disobeying traffic signals and driving the wrong way as well as factors contributing to violations and risk-taking behaviours of the road users. Both interview guides were pretested (pilot interviews excluded from the final analysis) and subsequently approved by the Principal Investigator (PI) and the Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) prior to data collection. All interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent and lasted between 40 and 60 minutes.
Data analysis
In data analysis phase, interviews were transcribed manually and the transcriptions were imported into MAXQDA 2020 for analysis. MAXQDA was used to support data coding and organisation (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019). The analysis followed a coding process involving open, axial and selective coding, which facilitated the development of themes from the data (Neuman, 2014).
During the open coding phase, the researchers examined the transcripts line by line to identify meaningful units of information. Segments of data relating to participants’ experiences and interpretations related to driving behaviour and traffic rule violations were assigned initial codes such as “courage”, “bravery” and “driving skills”. In the axial coding phase, these initial codes were compared and grouped according to conceptual similarities to form broader categories. For instance, codes relating to “courage”, “bravery” and “driving skills” were combined into categories including “aggressive driving attitude” and “thrill-oriented behaviour.” In the selective coding phase, these categories were integrated to develop the core themes that provided an explanation of drivers’ attitudes toward traffic violations. For example, the theme “Aggression and thrill-seeking” (Theme 4.2.2) emerged from this process.
The coding process was conducted by the primary author, who carried out open, axial and selective coding of the transcripts. After the initial coding phase, the generated codes were independently reviewed by two additional members of the research team. Any ambiguities or overlaps in the coding were discussed collectively. A few codes were refined or merged for clarity based on the discussion. Finally, the revised coding framework was reviewed by the PI of the project, who ensured alignment between codes, emerging categories and the objective of the research. This process strengthened the credibility and analytical rigour of the findings.
Trustworthiness
The interviews were transcribed by two separate research teams involved in the project. The teams then exchanged transcripts to check for potential errors and ensure accuracy. Following this verification process, the transcriptions were shared with the PI prior to analysis. This process followed the principles of investigator triangulation (Carter et al., 2014), enhancing the trustworthiness of the study.
Results
Traffic rule violations: drivers as agent of self-endangerment
Road traffic rule violations, including improper overtaking, improper lane usage, disobeying traffic signals and driving the wrong way were frequently observed on the roads as identified by the current study. Many research participants reported that traffic rule violations are common among road users with improper lane usage identified as one of the most common violations. Participants described lane discipline as inconsistent and a significant safety concern. The mixed operation of different vehicle types including cars, vans, motorcycles and trucks on the same roads, without clear adherence to dedicated lanes contributes to a congested and chaotic driving environment on roads in Islamabad. As one participant noted:
“Improper lane usage is the primary violation. Nobody cares about how and when to change lane. There are three or more lanes on each road. Hiace (vans) and cars have their own, motorcycles have their own and trucks have their separate lanes. But still, nobody follows which lane belongs to what category of vehicle. They all violate lane discipline. It causes most of the crashes.”
(Commuter 4)
Disobeying traffic signals and driving the wrong way were other commonly reported practices. Such behaviours increase vulnerability for both drivers and passengers and contribute to an unsafe road environment. The findings indicate that these behaviours involve high levels of risk-taking with drivers knowingly engaging in behaviours that significantly increase the likelihood of severe crashes. Many participants considered these acts normal or situationally justified, indicating a cultural normalisation of risk. These findings align with Igra and Irwin’s (1996) concept of risk-taking behaviour, which suggests that repeated engagement in risky actions leads to acceptance as normal.
However, some drivers rationalised their traffic rule violations, citing emergencies or situational pressure. As one participant explained:
“Sometimes, it happens that you have to do all these things in compulsion. For example, if anybody sitting in your vehicle is ill and needs to reach in hospital.”
(Driver 7)
Although this justification for improper overtaking and disobeying traffic signals may appear reasonable, at the same time it may reinforce tolerance for risky behaviour, thereby sustaining unsafe road culture rather than mitigating it.
Overtaking violations: a matter of impulse
The analysis identified two sub-themes underlying overtaking violations: impulsiveness, and aggression and thrill-seeking (about the traffic rules).
Impulsiveness
Overtaking was frequently described by participants as an impulsive driving behaviour. Many drivers reported engaging in it without deliberate planning as part of their routine practices. This impulsivity aligns with findings by Pakgohar et al. (2011) and Febres et al. (2020), emphasising unsafe human behaviour as key contributors to crashes on the road. As one driver described:
“Sometimes it becomes a matter of heart and you perform risky acts on the roads.”
(Driver 11)
Such statements suggest how spontaneous decision-making, in the form of traffic rule violations, has become habitual and socially tolerated within the RTC of Islamabad.
Aggression and thrill-seeking
The study further revealed that drivers who engaged in frequent improper overtaking were often perceived as aggressive and self-proclaimed experts on the road. Risky manoeuvres were described by some participants as exciting and enjoyable. Violating traffic rules without causing crashes or without being caught by traffic police personnel was regarded as a display of bravery or skill. These practices were described as receiving approval and appreciation from others (drivers and sometimes passengers), reinforcing a culture of risk-taking. One participant stated:
“Sometimes you can hear drivers say that it is not an easy task to violate rules and escape the situation without any mishap or crash. They believe it requires courage and bravery and if you have the skills, then why not?”
(Driver 5)
Another participant who admitted to such behaviour himself, expressed:
“There are so many things going on in our mind. Sometimes we do not care what is going to happen. In such situation we violate traffic rules. But the thing is, I trust my skills. I proudly say that I have not committed any crash but have violated rules several times.”
(Driver 18)
These accounts indicate that, for some participants, risk-taking was associated with perceptions of competence and confidence, thereby contributing to unsafe driving practices on the roads. These practices and violations were described as common in the urban roads, especially in heavy traffic zones.
Lack of knowledge about overtaking and lane discipline
The study identified that several drivers demonstrated limited awareness of overtaking and lane discipline. Many drivers had acquired driving skills informally through family members, friends or peers, rather than through professional instruction resulting in limited knowledge of basic traffic signs, indicators and lane markings. In a short period of time, these informally trained drivers, called “mummy daddy drivers” begin driving independently which may contribute to challenges for traffic rule compliance. One of the research participants remarked:
“In my opinion, about 90 percent of the road users do not know the basic driving principles. Many drivers are unaware of indicators and the road markings. They do not know when to move left, right, or when to use double indicators. I was surprised as I was watching a program where, according to an expert, 99 percent of people in Pakistan did not know the correct use of hazard light.”
(Commuter 1)
This study revealed about a lack of knowledge and awareness among the majority of the road users regarding road safety rules. Even when some knowledge exists, social norms often override formal rules. Participants emphasised that institutions such as the Islamabad Traffic Police (ITP), Islamabad Transport Authority (ITA) and educational authorities should actively provide training and awareness programs to promote safe driving practices.
Use of seat belts: a tool to deceive traffic police personnel
The use of seat belts, as described by several participants, was largely symbolic, serving to avoid fines rather than enhance safety. Drivers reported wearing seat belts near police checkpoints but removing them immediately afterward. A participant stated:
“Exactly, it is true. It has been a part of our psyche. When traffic personnel are standing on the road, we wear seatbelts. As soon as we cross the personnel, we remove the seat belts.”
(Commuter 5)
This pattern was further reinforced by another participant, who highlighted the poor condition of the seat belts in many vehicles. He noted:
“Seat belts are often given less importance and, in many vehicles, especially public transport vehicles, they are in such poor condition to be used. It is better not to use them than to rely on them.”
(Commuter 6)
This behaviour indicates both weak law enforcement and limited awareness of safety benefits. Furthermore, it highlights vehicles maintenance issues where safety features like seat belts are left in despair and commuters actively choose not to use them because of the lack of utility. This altogether suggests a broader pattern of instrumental compliance, where adherence is motivated by fear of fines rather than concern for safety.
Empirical evidence from Rawalpindi, Pakistan revealed that half (51%) of surveyed drivers had never used seat belts (Mir et al., 2013). The World Health Organization (2023) also reports that Pakistan lacks comprehensive seat belts laws aligned with the international best practices, categorising it among countries where either no seat belt laws exist or where legislation applies only to drivers. These findings indicate that both individual attitudes and policy shortcomings play a role in persistent neglect of safety measures.
Driving the wrong way: a reflection of risk normalisation and institutional neglect
The current study identified two major reasons for driving the wrong way (i.e., against the prescribed direction of traffic). The first was drivers’ tendency to seek shortcuts to save time and fuel. Participants reported that drivers in Pakistan often avoid travelling even a short additional distance to reach a proper turning point and instead, they drive against the flow of traffic. Although participants acknowledged that this may increase crash risk and contravene traffic regulations. A participant noted:
“As a nation, we are often in a state of hurry. We do not wait for two minutes in a traffic signal. We proceed even when the red light is on. I have personally managed to avoid consequences in several such situations. Usually, when the signal turns yellow, we rush to cross it, even though a yellow signal indicates the need to stop. Similarly, many drivers prefer driving wrong way rather than taking a proper route, even if the correct turn is only a short distance away.”
(Driver 3)
A commuter participant acknowledged that such behaviours are not limited to drivers, rather commuters may also encourage drivers to engage in unsafe practices. He noted:
“We also encourage and motivate drivers to take risks and to reach the destination quickly. We do this even when there is no real urgency on our part.”
(Commuter 3)
The second reason relates to perceived institutional neglect. Some participants reported instances where traffic officers did not intervene, even when violations occur in their direct presence. Participants suggested that traffic violations were not always enforced consistently or treated with sufficient seriousness. One driver recounted:
“They (traffic personnel) usually charge fines and I have personally experienced such situation several times. Whenever I made a mistake or committed a traffic violation, they approached me. I used to apologise and they would let me go. There are some good officers who accept apology.”
(Driver 1)
Another participant highlighted bribery as a form of informal negotiation:
“It is the money that makes everything possible.”
(Driver 10)
The findings of this study suggest that inconsistent enforcement of traffic rules may contribute to the patterns of non-compliance among road users. They also indicate that more consistent enforcement and appropriately graduated penalties for traffic rule violations, ranging from minor to serious offences, may strengthen deterrence and improve compliance. Although often perceived as minor infractions in Islamabad, these violations contribute substantially to road crashes. Reducing their occurrence has the potential to prevent crashes and the resulting injury and fatalities and improve public well-being.
Overall, the findings indicate that traffic rule violations in Islamabad arise from an interplay of behavioural and cultural dimensions. Impulsiveness, thrill-seeking and the lack of road safety knowledge among road users coexist with weak institutional oversight and inconsistent enforcement. These behavioural acts are not isolated acts of individual non-compliance but occur within a socially embedded RTC in which unsafe acts are normalised. Consequently, the road safety challenges in Pakistan extend beyond individual responsibility and point to a systemic normalisation of risk that requires both behavioural and structural reforms.
Discussion
Every year, a large number of people are killed in road traffic crashes, many of these crashes have been associated with traffic rule violations. These violations are closely linked to human behavioural factors. Consistent with previous studies (Febres et al., 2020; Hamid et al., 2023; Musa et al., 2020; Pakgohar et al., 2011), the present research suggests that behavioural practices like speeding, high-risk manoeuvring, disobeying traffic signals, neglect of seat belts use, mobile phone use while driving and lack of awareness about road safety rules, all contribute to road traffic crashes. These behaviours have also been linked to considerable social and economic burdens (Hyder & Razzak, 2013; Masood & Zaman, 2025), particularly in LMICs like Pakistan, where institutional capacity has remained ineffective to address road traffic related problems and behavioural regulations.
While previous studies in Malaysia (Musa et al., 2020), Spain (Febres et al., 2020), Nigeria (Uzondu et al., 2022) and US (Stewart, 2022) have highlighted the influence of human behaviour and enforcement mechanisms, the current study extends this understanding by examining how such behaviours are socially interpreted within everyday mobility practices. Participants in this study suggested that these actions are not always perceived merely as errors or ignorance but are embedded within shared meanings and routine driving practices in the capital city, Islamabad. Several participants described behaviours such as improper lane usage, disobeying traffic signals and driving the wrong way as common and, in certain contexts, socially tolerated. Some research participants considered these practices as demonstration of confidence, skill and control over vehicle, rather than carelessness. These findings align with traffic psychology perspectives suggesting that repeated exposure to high-risk behaviours may contribute to their normalisation within specific social contexts (Igra & Irwin, 1996).
The study also highlights participants’ perceptions regarding enforcement practices. Some participants reported instances where traffic personnel appeared lenient, accepted apologies or engaged informal negotiations, including accepting bribes. Such perceived inconsistencies in enforcement may weaken the deterrent effect of traffic regulations. When enforcement is experienced as discretionary, it may contribute to the persistence of behaviours that are legally defined as violations. These findings align with observations by Aslam et al. (2024), who note concerns regarding the adequacy of penalties for traffic rule violations in Pakistan. Together, these dynamics resonate with the Heinrich Domino Theory (1941), which emphasises that crashes may result from interconnected behavioural and environmental factors rather than isolated individual errors.
Another important insight, which the current study highlighted, is related to instrumental compliance. Several participants indicated that safety measures, such as wearing seat belts, are sometimes adopted primarily to avoid fines imposed under traffic regulations (Islamabad Traffic Police, 2023) rather than to enhance personal safety. Seat belts are used near traffic police check posts and in those areas where road users feel that they are under surveillance. This behaviour is common on the roads in Islamabad and suggests that compliance is externally motivated, driven by fear of fines rather than internalised awareness of risk or safety benefits of seat belt use. Such patterns highlight the superficial nature of safety consciousness among road users and suggest that awareness campaigns alone have limited impact unless they are aligned with consistent enforcement and cultural transformation.
By combining behavioural insights from traffic psychology, structural explanations from safety science and sociological interpretations of shared norms and meanings, this study offers an interdisciplinary understanding of the normalisation of risks within RTC in Islamabad. It demonstrates that high-risk driving practices are perpetuated not only by individual attitudes but also by shared social meanings and institutional tolerance. The normalisation of risky behaviour, as described by participants, indicates a broader pattern of institutional and social tolerance within the studied context.
Overall, this study offers empirical and theoretical insights into the concept of road safety within the context of LMICs. Findings highlighted that certain traffic rule violations are accepted, culturally sustained and have become the part of everyday mobility on the roads. Behaviours such as improper overtaking, disobeying traffic signals and driving the wrong way are often understood as demonstrations of skill and bravery rather than as risky behaviour or violations. Participants also described perceived inconsistencies in enforcement practices, which may contribute to the persistence of such behaviours. These insights extend behavioural model of road safety and advance a cultural-sociological framework that links risk-taking to social meaning, institutional leniency and collective acceptance.
Focusing on the concept of risk normalisation, this study offers a distinctive theoretical and policy contribution. The findings suggest that road safety interventions in Islamabad, Pakistan may need to extend beyond driver training and penalties to address the cultural legitimacy of traffic rule violations. It requires reshaping how high-risk behaviours are perceived and re-establishing deterrence through strict enforcement and public accountability.
Limitations
Interviews for this study were conducted with drivers of cars, light transport vehicles (LTVs) and heavy transport vehicles (HTVs). However, powered two-wheeler users are a substantial proportion of road users in Islamabad and contribute to overall traffic exposure. Future research including the perspectives of these road users may provide further insights into the patterns and underlying causes of traffic rule violations in Islamabad, Pakistan.
Another limitation of the study relates to the limited inclusion of female participants. Although women also drive and share the road environment in Islamabad, Pakistan, only one female driver and one female commuter were included in the sample. While this reflects broader gender patterns in driving participation in Pakistan, the findings are predominantly based on male perspectives. Consequently, interpretations related to cultural norms and shared road practices may not fully capture the experiences of the female road users. Future research should therefore aim for more balanced gender representation.
Conclusion
Road traffic rule violations such as improper lane usage, disobeying traffic signals and driving the wrong way in Islamabad are not merely isolated behavioural lapses but are embedded within a broader RTC. As described by the participants, these risky behaviours are often practiced and socially accepted and become normalised. Some road users perceive them as indicators of confidence and driving skills. Other road users are no longer concerned about these violations instead considering it a demonstration of bravery when they violate road traffic rules without being the victim of any crash on the roads. This normalisation of risk suggests a cultural pattern in which repeated unsafe behaviours on the roads are tolerated, reinforced and transmitted to others. Alongside cultural acceptance, factors like limited formal driver’s education, reliance on informal learning, perceived inconsistencies in enforcement of road traffic rules and lack of awareness among road users further strengthens this cycle of risk. As a result, traffic violations are both habitual and systemic, significantly undermining road safety in Islamabad.
To address these challenges, findings from this study suggest traffic rules may require more consistent enforcement. Instead of relying primarily on check post-based monitoring in traffic violations hot spots, enforcement agencies may benefit from increased mobile patrol and technology-based monitoring systems (e.g., automated cameras) for detecting violations like disobeying traffic signals and driving the wrong way. Sustainable change may require reshaping perceptions of risk and redefining what is socially acceptable behaviour on the roads through regular enforcement. By confronting the cultural normalisation of risk, policymakers and institutions may create safer road environments in Islamabad, Pakistan.
AI tools
During the preparation of our manuscript, we used ChatGPT (GPT-5.5; OpenAI) for language improvement and grammatical corrections. However, the use of AI did not influence our ideas or analysis. All authors declare that the tool was used for English language editing during the final preparation of the manuscript prior to submission. Specifically, the tool assisted in identifying grammatical errors and improving English language. All suggestions were reviewed and approved by the authors. No AI tools were used in the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of results or the generation of scientific content.
Author contributions
Asif Hayat wrote the initial draft of the paper. Hifza Irfan conducted the fieldwork and transcribed the data. She also did the final review of the paper. Sadia Haider contributed to editing the paper and contributed to the conclusion. Muhammad Zaman supervised the research project and the complete paper. He designed the methodology of the research, analysed the data and interpreted the data.
Funding
This research project is funded by Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan as a part of Grand Challenge Fund (GCF-744). We duly acknowledge the HEC contribution.
Human Research Ethics Review
The current research project has been presented to the School of Sociology, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad’s Research Committee to get approval for international and local research ethics. The Ethics Committee granted approval on 15 October 2024, affirming that our study aligned with the ethical guidelines and effectively safeguards the rights and wellbeing of human participants (SOC-2024-987).
Data availability statement
Data will be provided upon request.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.