Introduction: One of the primary countermeasures in place to prevent road rule violations is legal enforcement, yet there are numerous applications that can undermine such efforts by notifying drivers of enforcement locations. However, the capabilities of these applications and how they can impact offending behavior is currently unknown. Method: Two studies were conducted to understand which of these applications are being used by drivers and how these applications are impacting road rule violations. Study 1 consisted of a content analysis that involved searching the Google Play Store and Apple iTunes Store for applications that could be used to avoid road rule violations using pre-determined keywords. Meanwhile, Study 2 consisted of 468 licensed Australian drivers (54.5% males) over the age of 17 years (Mage = 35 years) who completed a survey. Results: A total of 73 applications were identified for Study 1, with most of the applications displaying speed camera locations. It was found that applications that notify drivers of traffic enforcement locations are widely prevalent, can be used on a variety of interfaces and include numerous additional features. Study 2 found that those who use the applications were more willing to speed than those who do not use the applications, while there was no difference in phone use while driving between those who do and do not use the applications. Practical Applications: The findings have important implications for stakeholders, policy, and future research. For example, it is suggested that specific functions of these applications need to be regulated to reduce road rule violations and crash risk. Meanwhile, enforcement initiatives need to evolve at a faster rate to keep up to date with the changing technology that can undermine them.@en

Mobile phone use while driving continues to be a significant road safety concern, despite the severe legal countermeasures to reduce this behaviour. Phone use while driving-related crashes have been demonstrated to be an issue in rural areas, yet research into the impact of legal sanctions on phone use while driving has primarily focussed on urban areas. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate differences in enforcement of phone use while driving between rural and urban environments as reported by police officers. In addition, to provide necessary context, this study aimed to explore how the police officers perceive differences in drivers’ engagement in phone use while driving between rural and urban environments. To address these aims, a total of 26 police officers from Queensland, Australia (18 with both rural and urban experience, 6 with only rural experience and 2 with only urban experience) completed an interview. A total of seven themes were developed from the data. Several differences between rural and urban environments were identified concerning different types of phone offending behaviour, as well as different resources, management and infrastructure that can impact police enforcement. For example, it was suggested that drivers in rural areas have less reasons to use their phone while driving. Nevertheless, when this behaviour does occur, it is more challenging to enforce this law in rural compared to urban environments. The results not only provide important contextual information for phone use while driving research, but also suggest that enforcement strategies for this behaviour may need to be recontextualised to incorporate the more nuanced aspects of rural policing.@en

Avoiding being caught and punished has consistently been demonstrated to be a key predictor of continued engagement in risky and illegal phone use while driving. This is a large concern, as the presence of applications such as Google Maps, Apple Maps, Waze, and social media pages/groups that share the location of enforcement activities related to phone use while driving has increased. The present investigation aimed to understand the impact of these technologies on phone use while driving using a mixed-methods approach. First, to obtain an enforcement perspective, 15 police officers from Queensland (Australia) were interviewed. Three main themes were identified, suggesting that the use of the technologies 1) can encourage dangerous driving and allow drivers to avoid punishment more often, 2) do not impact police enforcement of the phone use while driving law and 3) can promote exposure to enforcement. Next, a quantitative survey was implemented with Queensland drivers (n = 622, 58.7% females). A cluster analysis was initially conducted to categorise the different types of phone offenders (acknowledging differential deterrability). Two clusters (high-frequency and low-frequency phone offenders) were created. A hierarchal binary logistic regression indicated that using Apple maps, Facebook police location sites and checking these Facebook sites predicted membership in the high-frequency phone offender group (Waze and Google maps were not significant). After controlling for the use of these technologies, avoiding being caught and punished predicted being in the high-frequency phone offender group. The results confirmed the impact of these technologies on phone use while driving behaviour.@en

Objective: Mobile phone use while driving is a major cause of distraction and area for concern. Numerous factors have been shown to be associated with engagement in mobile phone use while driving, including peer influences and social media content encouraging the behavior. Phone detection cameras are being increasingly utilized to enforce the hand-held mobile phone use while driving ban in Australia, yet this has been accompanied by an emergence of camera location pages on social media platforms such as Facebook. Research is clearly needed to explore the nature and extent of this online content, since such information can be used to counteract any negative effects on enforcement. Methods: Accordingly, this exploratory study analyzed content on Facebook pertaining to mobile phone use while driving, enforcement of the behavior and legal penalties associated with the behavior. Results: A total of 167 public Facebook posts shared within Australia in January to October 2021 were examined. Overall, it was found that: (a) a large proportion (74%) of posts focused on the location of mobile phone cameras, (b) whilst most discussions centered around discouraging mobile phone use while driving, a large number also aimed to facilitate avoiding detection for the behavior. Finally, very few posts/comments acknowledged the risks associated with the behavior, including the risk of being caught. Conclusions: This research provides preliminary evidence that social media platforms appear to provide an avenue to reduce the likelihood of apprehension. Avenues for future research are discussed.@en

This report addresses two prominent risky driving behaviors, namely mobile phone use while driving and speeding, within the context of road safety research. Using a handheld phone while driving significantly heightens crash risk and impairs driver performance, manifesting in increased braking response time, augmented steering wheel corrections (Collet et al., 2010), elevated reaction time, and lane departure (Lipovac et al., 2017; Oviedo-Trespalacios et al., 2016). Speeding similarly escalates crash risk and severity (Kloeden et al., 1997; Kloeden et al., 2001). Due to the severe consequences of these behaviors in terms of fatalities, injuries, and societal costs, governments worldwide have implemented policies and enforcement initiatives to dissuade drivers from engaging in such actions. Automated cameras have emerged as a primary method for curbing speeding behavior, and several Australian jurisdictions, including New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria, have also introduced mobile phone detection cameras to combat the increasing prevalence of mobile phone use while driving. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is scheduled to fully implement these cameras in October 2023. However, the implementation of these cameras can take diverse forms. Some enforcement cameras adopt an overt approach, making them highly visible to drivers through the use of bright paint and/or signage. In contrast, a covert approach has been employed for some enforcement cameras, rendering them inconspicuous without bright paint or overt signage. Despite these different approaches, a definitive standard for achieving lasting deterrent effects remains elusive. This paper presents findings from a project funded by the ACT Road Safety Fund, aiming to identify the most salient road rule camera enforcement approach (overt, covert, or a combination of both) for creating a strong deterrent effect against mobile phone use while driving and speeding violations. Two studies were conducted to address this objective. The first study involved focus groups to gain in-depth qualitative insights into the perceived advantages and disadvantages of various camera enforcement methods, as well as their potential impact on attitudes toward road safety, high-risk behaviors, and road rule compliance. These focus groups, consisting of 58 participants across Australia, generated four enforcement-type scenarios for the subsequent quantitative study. The second study, a cross-sectional survey of 1168 participants across Australia, aimed to examine how different types of exposure to road rule enforcement influence perceptual deterrence, offending behaviors, and awareness of the broader road safety issue. Results from both studies indicate that a combination of overt and covert enforcement cameras is the most effective strategy for reducing speeding and mobile phone use while driving. Furthermore, personal factors, such as age and gender, influence the impact of different camera signage types. The implications of these findings suggest that a comprehensive approach involving both overt and covert cameras is essential to maximize deterrence, technology acceptance, and the reduction of risky driving behaviors. Recommendations include deploying overt cameras on high-risk roads to enhance rule compliance and using warning signs in conjunction with covert cameras to increase drivers' perceptions of being monitored. Additionally, advertising campaigns should complement enforcement cameras to raise awareness of the risks associated with these behaviors. Continued evaluation and vigilance regarding the effectiveness of these cameras should consider driver adaptation and avoidance strategies.@en