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

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

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

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

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