NORTHERN ILOILO STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology Department
Sara, Iloilo
[Link]. 97Q19783
Hit-and-run case in Municipality of San Dionisio
Kilven V. Amar and Ariel P. Dogomeo
BS Criminology
On Job Training
(OJT)
Presented to the Faculty
of Bachelor of Science in Criminology
Northern Iloilo State University, Victorino
Salcedo Campus Sara, Iloilo
On Job Training
(Case Study)
By:
Kilven V. Amar
And
Ariel P. Dogomeo
Theorizing hit-and-run: A study of driver decisionmaking processes after a
road traffic collision in Municipality of San DIonsio
NORTHERN ILOILO STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology Department
Sara, Iloilo
[Link]. 97Q19783
Abstract
The main objective of this study is to determine the hit and run cases in the
municipality of San Dionisio. Explanations for driver decisions to hit-and-run have
largely been based around a rational choice perspective that suggests drivers
consider the expected costs of reporting a collision against the benefits of leaving
the scene. Although such an explanation appears plausible, previous research has
largely focused upon identifying contributory or contextual factors through analysis
of quantitative datasets rather than engaging with drivers in order to understand
how they make the decision to ‘run’.
Introduction
A hit and run collision is a road traffic crash in which a driver of a striking
vehicle flees the scne without aiding the victim or offering information the number
of hit and run case in san dionisio in 2020 is only 2 percent in 2020, over the same
period of time the hit and run cases is decrease in zero percent in 2021 in the
municipality of san dioniso Iloilo, it is widely accepted that hit and run collisions
increase the risk of death for the victim as leaving the scene can increase the time
it takes for emergency services to arrive, other consequences include financial
complications if insurance claims need to be made for damages to vehicle or
compensation paid to victims, as well as the potential emotional trauma caused to
victims.
Although a body of previous research has identified a number of contributory
factors associated with hit-and-run collisions, two main criticisms can be levelled.
While there has been some development of explanatory theory – largely based
around a rational choice perspective – there has been little reflection on this or
development of the approach. In addition, no known research has engaged with
offenders to garner their accounts about the decision to leave the scene. Indeed, it
has been commented that research should attempt to better understand
‘motivating factors for the decision to flee’ (MacLeod et al., 2012: 371), though the
previous research has commonly identified the odds ratios of particular contributory
factors being present in hit-and-run collisions, rather than engage with drivers about
decision making.
Literature review
Previous Research on Hit-and-Run
A body of research has explored the reasons for hit-and-run in countries such as
China (Zhang et al., 2014), the USA (MacLeod et al., 2012), Japan (Fujita et al.,
2014), Singapore (Tay et al., 2008) and Ghana (Aidoo et al., 2013). The majority of
these studies have developed logistical regression models from large accident
datasets in order to identify the odds of particular factors being present (or not) at
the crash scene. Usefully, such studies have identified a number of contributory
factors, including:
NORTHERN ILOILO STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology Department
Sara, Iloilo
[Link]. 97Q19783
3
• Crash types: Zhang et al. (2014) in Ghana and Tay et al. (2008, 2009) in
Singapore and the USA respectively, found that collisions involving pedestrians
were more likely to involve a hit-and-run driver. However, in their analysis of drivers
in Illinois, USA, Zhou et al. (2016) found that drivers are more likely to stay at the
scene when somebody is injured and leave after damage-only collisions.
• Human factors: most studies suggest that offenders are likely to be male (Tay et
al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2014), have previous convictions for motoring-related
offences (MacLeod et al., 2012; Solnick and Hemenway, 1995) and not have a valid
licence (MacLeod et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2014). Drivers are less likely to leave
the scene if a victim is either very young or old (MacLeod et al., 2012) and alcohol
consumption is a common contributory factor in hit-and-run collisions both involving
pedestrians (MacLeod et al., 2012) and in damage-only cases (Jiang et al., 2016).
• Vehicle characteristics: Zhang et al. (2014) identified drivers of newer cars as
being less likely to flee from crashes; drivers involved in collisions with buses are
also less likely to hit-and-run as are drivers of commercial vehicles.
• Road factors: Tay et al. (2009) observed a greater likelihood of hit-and-run on
flat, level roads or those with lower speed limits (45 mph or less), while Zhang et al.
(2014) observed high rates of hit-and-run on elevated roads, those with merging
lanes and at tunnels.
• Environment: a number of studies have suggested hit-and-run collisions tend to
occur at weekends (MacLeod et al., 2012; Solnick and Hemenway, 1995; Tay et al.,
2010) and when visibility/light conditions are poor (MacLeod et al., 2012; Tay et al.,
2008, 2009). Some studies have suggested drivers are more likely to run in poor
weather (Tay et al., 2008) while others such as Zhang et al. (2014) observed no
effect.
• Driver distraction: a growing body of research has also begun to consider how
driver distraction factors – such as operating an electronic communication device (a
cell phone, DVD player or navigation system); distraction from outside the vehicle
(such as dangerous overtaking); and distraction from inside (such as chatting with
passengers) – can influence driver decisions to leave the scene. Roshandeh et al.
(2016) identified that the presence of a distraction factor most significantly
increases the odds of a driver leaving the scene when they hit a parked vehicle.
The evidence above shows that contributory factors can be identified, though these
are not always consistent from study to study. Other methodologies have been used
to explore hit-and-run, but these are also limited. For example, Dalby and Nesca
(2008) used a case study approach (based upon only three cases) and identified
behavioural characteristics of drivers. It was posited that mental illness (such as
dementia) can play a role in drivers leaving the scene who do not necessarily
actively attempt to evade detection. They also note that a previous history of
driving offences and irresponsible behaviour can be indicative of a personality that
can be callous and fails to consider consequences. Thus they concur with Solnick
and Hemenway (1994) who suggested that personality can be critical in post-
accident behaviours.
While a number of potential reasons why drivers ‘hit-and-run’ can be identified in
the literature, the most commonly used explanatory framework for hit-and-run is
NORTHERN ILOILO STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology Department
Sara, Iloilo
[Link]. 97Q19783
4
based around what Fujita et al. (2014: 285) referred to as a ‘classic economic cost–
benefit approach’. This approach ‘has much in common with rational choice theories
of criminal behaviour’ (see Fujita et al., 2014: 277) and the most illuminating
application to hit-andrun driving is provided by Tay et al. (2008). Here the authors
refer to a ‘standard decision analysis framework’ (Tay et al., 2008: 1331) where the
expected costs and benefits that shape drivers’ decisions to leave the scene are
presented. The starting point for such decisions is the certainties or costs of
knowing what the likely outcomes of reporting a crash are for drivers – such as
increased insurance premiums if the driver is at fault and legal penalties. However,
it is argued that the likelihood of reporting is also dependent upon the severity of
the crash. Key to this is the expected cost of the crash and it is thought that as the
severity increases it is less likely that a driver will report. Connected to severity is
the concept of blame as ‘factors that reduce the likelihood of blame’ (Tay et al.,
2008: 1331) increase the likelihood of reporting. Such mitigating factors can include
wet weather, the actions of other drivers and difficult road layout – such as blind
corners.
Therefore, the decision to ‘run’ is largely based upon a simple calculation of the
expected cost of not reporting (taking the run option) against the potentially higher
costs of reporting. However, Tay et al. (2008) go on to argue that the relationship
between the risk-taking propensity of drivers and perceived likelihood of capture
(rather than the actual probability of capture) is also important in shaping decisions.
Thus, for drivers who are risk-averse the ‘uncertainties involved in hit-and-run is
[sic] not likely to be an attractive option’ (Tay et al., 2008: 1331), whereas for those
who are risk-neutral the perceived likelihood of capture is thought to be crucial in
influencing choices. Therefore, for risk-neutral drivers, factors that reduce the
likelihood of apprehension – in particular where the presence of witnesses or being
seen is low (e.g. in low visibility because of poor weather or where there is poor
lighting or darkness) – will increase the likelihood of running. Tay et al. (2008) also
identified a further category of drivers – the high risktaking drivers – and note that
hit-and-run might be a more attractive option for this group than for other types of
drivers (particularly the risk-averse). Presumably such high risktaking drivers are
the most likely to leave the scene when the perceived likelihood of capture is high.
The classic decision analysis framework appears to be a plausible one for explaining
driver decision making. However, to date, the framework has been subject to little
critical analysis. Indeed, previous studies of hit-and-run driving have often identified
a number of contributory factors without discussing their relationship to the
decision analysis framework and the previous research has developed the
framework in the absence of any data collected from offenders. While Tay et al.
(2008) highlighted the problems encountered in attempting to do fieldwork with hit-
and-run offenders, it should be noted that criminological research has often
engaged with convicted criminals in order to gain a better understanding of their
offending decisions (see, for example, Lasky et al., 2017).
NORTHERN ILOILO STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology Department
Sara, Iloilo
[Link]. 97Q19783
Paradigm of the study
Age :
18-30
31 above
Cause:
Hit-and-run case in
Hit and run Municipality of San Dionisio
Sex:
Male
Female
Year:
2020
2021
Demographic profile of the respondents
The demographic profile of the respondents includes age, status, gender, degree
of accident, and time frame of the [Link] variables that were considered in this
study were assumed to have an effect or implication to the coping mechanisms of the
respondents.
Respondents that are aged 18 – 30 and 31 above who belongs to the young
adulthood stage dominate this study. In relation to age bracket, young adults are more
likely to be involved in a vehicular accident in this study.
Table 1: profile of suspect in terms of age, cause, sex, and year
Age Cause Sex Year Percent
CONSUMAT
ED
40 RECKLESS M 2020
IMPRUDENC
E
NORTHERN ILOILO STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology Department
Sara, Iloilo
[Link]. 97Q19783
6
RESULTING
TO 2%
HOMICIDE
CONSUMAT
ED
45 RECKLESS M 2020
IMPRUDENC
E
RESULTING
TO
MULTIPLE
PHYSICAL
INJURY
100%
Findings: Rational Decision Making and Hit-and-Run Collisions
Initial analysis revealed that in san dionisio the factors that structured driver
decisions to leave the scene could been identified. In cases of hit and run drivers
claimed to be oblivious about being in a collision at all. As stated, a ‘lack of
knowledge that an accident occurred’ has been used as a defence in hit-and-run
cases and this might have been the case here. The reasons cited for being oblivious
ranged from being under stress.
Table 2. Hit-and-run driver typologies
Offender Key factors structuring decisions to leave the
scene typologies
Rational Drivers who make a rational decision to leave the
scene escapists as they are most fearful of the costs
reporting. This group
are the most likely to be driving illegally (they
might not
have insurance/no license, etc.), though the group
also
commonly consider themselves as to blame for the
collision. They leave the scene to avoid costs.
Uncertain Drivers who state that the severity of the collision
is minor
departers or trivial. They commonly deny they have acted
illegally by not stopping/reporting. Often this group
admit they are to
blame for the collision but claim to be unsure
about
whether the collision should be reported at all.
NORTHERN ILOILO STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology Department
Sara, Iloilo
[Link]. 97Q19783
7
Panickers This group are least able to deal with the shock of
the
collision and cite panic as a reason for leaving the
scene.
This panic can also be a product of being to blame
for the
collision or being fearful of costs of
reporting/potential
punishment.
The intimidated Drivers who stop after a collision, but face
aggression from
other drivers or pedestrians and as a result leave
the scene.
Impaired or Drivers whose decision making is affected by
drink/drugs
‘non compos mentis’ or are too drunk/ drugged or mentally unwell
at the time
of the collision to make rational decision whether to
stay or
leave the scene.
Discussion and Conclusion
Developing a better understanding of offender decisions to hit-and-run is
necessary due to the potential consequences of this crime type. As this article
illustrates, there has been some development of theoretical understanding for hit-
and-run principally based upon a rational choice framework. However, the previous
application of the approach has largely been based upon analysis of large
quantitative datasets that identify contributory factors, but fail to understand
decision-making processes from the perspective of offenders. As suggest, engaging
in more qualitative or ‘in-depth field investigations’ could yield much about the
decision-making process of the hit-and-run driver. This study has begun to do this
by engaging in qualitative research with offenders, developing a deeper
understanding of offender decision making and also by developing a plausible
typology of hit-and-run drivers. Of course, the findings of this article have to be
treated with caution due to the relatively small sample size.
References
Aidoo E, Amoh-Gyimah R and Actaah W (2013) The effect of road and environmental
characteristics on pedestrian hit-and-run accidents in Ghana. Accident
Analysis and Prevention 53: 23–27.
Beirness DJ, Clayton A and Vanlaar W (2008) An investigation of the usefulness, the
acceptability and impact on lifestyle of alcohol ignition interlocks in drink-
driving offenders’ usability of alcolocks (road safety research report). Road
Safety Research Report 88, Department for Transport.
Bjorgo T (2016) Preventing Crime: A Holistic Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
NORTHERN ILOILO STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology Department
Sara, Iloilo
[Link]. 97Q19783
8
Cornish D (1994) The procedural analysis of offending and its relevance for
situational crime prevention. In: Clarke R (ed.) Crime Prevention Studies, Vol.
3. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 151–196.
Cornish DB and Clarke RV (1986) The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice
Perspectives on Offending. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Dalby T and Nesca M (2008) The psychology of hit-and-run. Law Enforcement
Executive Forum
8(5): 51–56.
Davis D and Silver B (2003) Stereotype threat and race of interviewer effects in a
survey of
political knowledge. American Journal of Political Science 8(5): 33–45.
Department for Transport (DfT) (2016) Accidents involving a hit-and-run
vehicle, Great Britain, 2005–2015. Data supplied by Department for
Transport. Hopkins and Chivers 61
Fujita G, Okamura K, Kihira M, et al. (2014) Factors contributing to driver choice
after hitting a
pedestrian in Japan. Accident Analysis and Prevention 72: 277–286.
Haddon W (1980) Options for the prevention of motor vehicle crash injury. Israeli
Medical
Journal 19(16): 45–65.
Jiang C, Linjun L, Chen S, et al. (2016) Hit-and-run crashes in urban river-crossing
road tunnels.
Accident Analysis and Prevention 95: 373–380.
Lasky NV, Fisher BS and Jacques S (2017) ‘Thinking thief’ in the crime prevention
arms race:
Lessons learned from shoplifters. Security Journal 30(3): 772–792.
LeClerc B and Wortley R (eds) (2014) Cognition and Crime: Offender Decision
Making and
Script Analyses. Oxon: Routledge.
MacLeod K, Griswold J, Arnold L, et al. (2012) Factors associated with hit-and-run
pedestrian
fatalities and driver identification. Accident Analysis and Prevention 45: 336–
372.
Mayou R and Bryant B (2003) Consequences of road traffic accidents for different
types of road
user. Injury 34(3): 197–202.
Price V, Sidebottom A and Tilley N (2016) Understanding and preventing lead theft
from
churches: A script analysis. In: Grove L and Thomas S (eds) Heritage Crime:
Progress, Prospects and Prevention. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 128–
148.
Roshandeh A, Zhou B and Behnood A (2016) Comparison of contributing factors in
hit-andrun
crashes with distracted and non-distracted drivers. Transportation Research
Part F 38: 22–28.
Sacco V and Kennedy L (2008) The Criminal Event: An Introduction to Criminology in
Canada.
Toronto: Thomson Nelson.
Solnick S and Hemenway D (1994) Hit the bottle and run: The role of alcohol in hit-
and-run
pedestrian fatalities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 55(6): 679–684.
Solnick S and Hemenway D (1995) The hit-and-run in fatal pedestrian accidents:
Victims,
circumstances and drivers. Accident Analysis Prevention 27(5): 643–649.
Starcke K and Brand M (2012) Decision making under stress: A selective review.
Neuroscience
and Biobehavioral Reviews 36: 1228–1248.
NORTHERN ILOILO STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology Department
Sara, Iloilo
[Link]. 97Q19783
9
Sykes G and Matza D (1957) Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency.
American
Sociological Review 22: 664–670.
Tay R, Barua U and Kattan L (2009) Factors contributing to hit-and-run in fatal
crashes.
Accident Analysis and Prevention 41: 227–233.
Tay R, Kattan L and Sun H (2010) A logistic model of hit-and-run crashes in Calgary.
Canadian
Journal of Transportation 4: 1–10.
Tay R, Rifaat S and Chin H (2008) A logistic model of the effects of roadway,
environmental,
vehicle, accident and driver characteristics on hit-and-run crashes. Accident
Analysis and Prevention 40(4): 1330–1336.
Zhang G, Li G, Cai T, et al. (2014) Factors contributing to hit-and-run crashes in
China.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 23: 113–
124.
Zhou B, Roshandeh A, Zhang S, et al. (2016) Analysis of factors contributing to hit-
and-run
crashes involved with improper driving behaviours. Procedia Engineering 137:
554–562.