When norms turn perverse: Contextual irrationality vs. rational traffic violations

A perfectly adequate traffic rule can turn “perverse” in situations when it does little to enhance road safety but seems – at least in the drivers’ minds – directed primarily at punishing those who violate it. This study examined traffic rule obedience in situations in which the rule was not in accordance with real safety needs. Six rules with major impact on road safety were analyzed: waiting at red traffic lights, legal overtaking, obeying the 50 km/h speed limit, wearing seatbelts, legal stopping/parking, and driving the car in good technical condition. Participants evaluated how adequate these rules are for safety. Then they were faced with six scenarios, that made each of these rules appear irrational, and were asked to report their potential engagement in deviant behavior. The survey data were collected in a sample of 605 drivers. Multiple regression analyses showed that in most situations rule violation depended on the usual deviant behavior, perceived irrationality of the rule, little respect for the law and low risk perception. These factors best explained the 50 km/h speed limit violation. The results suggest that the lack of situational risk factors, which makes the rule look meaningless, is important determinant of rule violation. Implications for massive disobedience and road safety are discussed.

► We question if traffic laws are always well adjusted to real safety needs.
► We study how drivers adapt to traffic rules which lose contextual rationality.
► Deviant behavior depends on the irrationality of the traffic situation.
► The usual driving behavior is the best predictor for deviance in perverse contexts.
► Compared to other norms, speed limits appear to be the most perverse.