Empirical data demonstrates that distracted driving is a leading cause of crashes even in countries with sophisticated road safety systems. As such, a paradigm shift is needed to prevent driver distraction. This study aims to contribute to this paradigm shift by critically investigating the official distraction-related information and road rules for drivers in Australia, while gaining an understanding of how distraction is specifically addressed in these materials. Using a multistage content analysis, it was identified that official information focuses on three major categories including overview of distraction, sources of distraction, and prevention of distraction. The findings suggested ways that State Governments could improve the available information and road rules, as some of these materials were insufficient or ambiguous. For instance, several sources of distraction, particularly internal distractions (e.g., medical impairments) and external distractions (e.g., advertisement billboards) have been overlooked or received limited attention in the information. Additionally, the information does not address the specific needs of certain road users, such as young and inexperienced drivers. Further, the guidelines for safe interaction with certain in-vehicle distractions such as smartwatches, advanced driving assistance systems, and pets are insufficient or inconsistent across jurisdictions. The rules concerning some distraction types are ambiguous and contain uncertainties. Furthermore, general rules involving distracted driving such as those related to careless driving were found to lack specificity. The results of this investigation provide guidance for policymakers worldwide in developing road rules for distracted driving and the need to change the approach to a more holistic management of distractions.

@en

Introduction: Speeding behaviour contributes significantly to road crashes and subsequent injuries and fatalities. The purpose of this study was to examine which traditional countermeasures (i.e., police enforcement and on-road signs) and technology-based countermeasures (i.e., advanced driver assistance systems [ADAS] and in-vehicle speed audio alerts) drivers perceived as effective in assisting them to comply with posted speed limits. Methods: Participants (N = 680; Mage = 49.34 years) who held a current driver's licence completed a 20-minute online survey. Participants in the experimental condition were randomly assigned to read one of four scenarios which differed based on location (urban or regional) and posted speed limit (60 km/hr or 100 km/hr) or to the control condition (no scenario), before answering questions about the perceived effectiveness of the traditional and technology-based interventions. For the experimental conditions, participants were instructed to respond to these questions based on how they would drive in the situation outlined in the scenario. Results: Low-level speeding behaviour was common, with 40.7 % reporting regularly driving 5 km over the posted speed limit in a 60 km/hr speed zone and 50.4 % reporting regularly driving 5 km over the posted speed limit in a 100 km/hr speed zone. A mixed ANOVA revealed that participants perceived police enforcement activities to be the most effective at assisting them to comply with posted speed limits when compared to other traditional and technology-based approaches. Further, ADAS was rated by participants as significantly more effective at assisting them to comply with the posted speed limit in the 100 km/hr urban condition compared to the 60 km/hr urban condition. Conclusions: Low-level speeding behaviour remains common practice and there is a need for continued roadside police presence to discourage this behaviour. Drivers with ADAS-equipped vehicles could also be encouraged to use systems, such as adaptative cruise control, to assist with speed management on high-speed roads.

@en

Distracted driving is a traffic safety issue worldwide. While the development of comprehensive information and road rules about distracted driving by governments is essential to address the issue, there is evidence showing that existing road rules and information may not always deter drivers from engaging in distractions while driving. Therefore, this study explored drivers’ views on government information and road rules concerning distracted driving, aiming to understand how these rules and information have shaped drivers’ perceptions and behaviour towards distractions. Interviews (n = 35) were conducted with Queensland drivers aged between 21 and 70 years and a thematic analysis was used to explore the data. Based on the findings, government information on distracted driving was believed by participants to be incomprehensive, not effectively communicated, and focused on mobile phone use. Road rules and enforcement measures often prioritise mobile phone use and contain grey areas that may confuse drivers about legal and illegal distractions. The results showed that the perceived risk of distractions varies among drivers, with some distractions not being considered as risky as other behaviours (e.g., using a smartwatch). Findings showed that government practices are believed to influence drivers’ perceptions and behaviour about distracted driving, encouraging an inaccurate perception about driver safety and with the potential to prompt drivers to engage with distracting behaviours without knowledge nor consideration of the risks. The results of this study offer important insights for policymakers in developing and disseminating comprehensive information and road rules for distracted driving.

@en

Objectives: Various legal countermeasures have been introduced in numerous jurisdictions worldwide to reduce the risky behaviour of phone use while driving. However, external factors do not influence behaviour alone; internal factors may also play a large role in influencing behaviour. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the impact of both external and internal influences on hand-held phone use while driving. Methods and analysis: The influence of external factors was examined after a higher penalty and a trial for mobile phone detection cameras was introduced in Queensland, Australia, utilising deterrence-theory related constructs. Meanwhile, internal factors were examined through the lens of self-determination theory to determine the relevance of self-regulation to phone use while driving, over and above the effect of deterrence factors. Findings: A total of 866 participants (M age = 37.51 years, SD = 17.23) completed a survey examining these variables. Despite the changes to the penalty and enforcement, the legal factors did not significantly deter drivers from phone use while driving. Instead, participants reported avoiding punishment, which influenced further engagement in the behaviour. Meanwhile, indicators of self-regulation including effort/importance, perceived pressure, and relatedness were found to have a more salient impact on the behaviour, whereby drivers who reported high levels of internalised regulatory processes were less likely to use a hand-held phone while driving. Novelty and improvement: These results provide a novel contribution to understanding road rule compliance and have important implications for both theory and practice. For example, it can be suggested that legal countermeasures need to be improved, while non-legal countermeasures that target internalisation is a promising avenue for future research.@en

Decades of research and development to address young drivers’ over-involvement in road crashes has led to critical improvements in understanding and interventions, yet has mostly focused on young drivers or their parents. Driving instructors have a key role in the young driver safety system, yet substantially less attention has been paid to their accreditation and professional development specific to teaching young drivers. Neurobiological development during mid-to-late adolescence influences how young people drive and the inflated risks they face relative to adult learners. In this paper, we discuss several of our research studies and supporting literature to argue that: (a) adept higher-order professional instruction can improve young driver safety behaviour in ways that can reduce crashes; (b) instructors are willing to be upskilled in young driver specific training needs; and (c) young drivers currently lack adequate training in new motor vehicle features that can enhance their safety, as do many adults, creating further demand on the driver-training industry. Given this body of work, we argue that the field has sufficiently progressed to know both why and how we should innovate and transform the driver training industry in ways that will improve young driver safety. However, we also note current developments appear to be working against rather than towards improvements. Therefore, there is a need to prioritise and implement change, and to harness advantages of emerging technologies. Professional development opportunities for driving instructors not only have potential to benefit the industry and young drivers, but also parents; therefore, boosting traffic safety culture across the community.@en

Background: With just one year left in the Decade of Action for Road Safety, it is timely nations reflect on their progress in the realm of improving road safety more generally, and in young driver road safety specifically given the pernicious problem that is young driver risky driving behaviour and road crashes. Effective intervention requires a fundamental foundation of understanding the nature of the problem. Therefore the current study explored the self-reported risky driving behaviour of young drivers in Lithuania, a nation classified as a developed country as recently as 2015. Method: The self-report Behaviour of Young Novice Drivers Scale (BYNDS, 1) was applied in a sample of 457 Lithuanian young drivers aged 18–24 years, after a rigorous forward-backward translation process. Results: Seven factors (risky exposure, transient rule violations, driver misjudgements, driver mood, vehicle overcrowding, personal seatbelt use, substance consumption) explained 65.2% of the variance in self-reported risky driving behaviour as measured by the BYNDS-Li. The most common risky driving behaviours included driving in excess of posted speed limits, and driving at high risk times such as at night and on weekends. Discussion and implications: The seven-factor structure of the BYNDS-Li supports arguments that culturally-valid measures should be operationalised in jurisdictions other than those in which they were developed (in the case of the BYNDS, Queensland, Australia). Moreover, systems thinking argues that interventions and efforts must be multi-sectoral and collaborative interventions. In the case of young driver road safety, these should be framed within the 4E's of education, engineering, enforcement, and engagement.@en