Distracted driving remains a significant road safety concern. To address the issue, it is important to understand drivers' perceptions of distractions and the related road rules. Accordingly, this study has three objectives. The first was to investigate drivers' beliefs and behaviours regarding distracted driving by expanding the Susceptibility to Distracted Driving Questionnaire. The second was to explore drivers' perceptions of current distracted driving rules by using the extended Value-Belief-Norm Theory and open-ended questions and to examine how beliefs and behaviours about distractions shape their views on road rules. The third was to assess the extent to which drivers perceive a need for broader distracted driving legislation and how their perceptions of current road rules contribute to this perceived need. Data were collected from 494 participants (aged 17 to 83 years), residing in Queensland, Australia, through an online questionnaire. Findings indicated a moderate level of engagement with both technological and non-technological distractions, with no significant difference observed between their levels of engagement. However, participants reported more favourable attitudes and a higher sense of control over technology-related distractions than non-technological distractions. Results also showed that while distracted driving rules were seen as fair and allowing freedom while driving, they were viewed as moderately effective and somewhat complex. Further, most participants supported the need for improved distracted driving rules, with lower perceived effectiveness and higher complexity of current rules linked to greater support. Results indicated that higher engagement with non-technological distractions was negatively associated with perceived effectiveness of rules, while greater risk compensation was linked to lower perceived fairness, and higher perceived control over distractions was significantly associated with lower perceived freedom.

The rapid evolution of technology used by drivers has increased the complexity of the driving task and introduced new sources of distraction, necessitating the development of distracted driving legislation that keeps pace with these changes. As such, this study examined drivers' views of a more comprehensive, technology-neutral approach to distracted driving rules, which extends beyond mobile phone use to include portable devices, in-built and mounted systems, and wearable devices. Guided by an extended Value-Belief-Norm theory, a policy acceptance model was developed and validated in assessing public support and acceptability of more comprehensive distracted driving legislation, examining how general and normative beliefs, as well as policy-specific perceptions, influence drivers’ acceptability, and identifying demographic differences in acceptability and its underlying factors. A sample of 494 drivers who reside in Queensland, Australia, participated in an online survey, which included both quantitative and open-ended questions. Findings revealed a relatively strong support for the proposed rules. Structural Equation Modelling identified personal norms, social norms, perceived fairness, and perceived effectiveness as significant predictors of acceptability, with the proposed policy acceptance model explaining 76.6% of the variance in acceptability. Group comparisons revealed that young drivers and males reported lower levels of perceived freedom, while those with greater familiarity with distracted driving reported higher levels of personal norms and problem awareness. Qualitative responses indicated that most participants viewed the proposed rules as more effective than current legislation, especially in addressing emerging technological distractions. However, concerns about enforcement, clarity, and the need for educational efforts were also raised.

Distracted driving continues to be a significant risk to road safety. While effective legislation and education are essential for preventing distracted driving, there is evidence showing that current official information and road rules related to distracted driving may not provide drivers with a comprehensive understanding of the issue. Therefore, this study aimed to explore drivers’ perspectives on how official information and road rules could be improved to effectively address distracted driving. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 35 drivers from Queensland, Australia, with thematic analysis employed to extract key themes from the discussions. The results showed that official information on distracted driving could benefit from more comprehensive content, including underrepresented distraction sources (e.g., using a smartwatch, interacting with passengers, and looking at advertisement billboards), the safety risks, and impacts on driving performance. Participants emphasised the need for distracted driving legislation to address the risks posed by a broader range of technological devices (e.g., infotainment systems, wearable devices), not just hand-held mobile phones. The results suggested a need for improved presentation of information, with future distracted driving content suggested to be presented visually, along with more targeted messaging for high-risk drivers such as young drivers. Further, social media, short training, and outdoor media were perceived by participants as the most effective delivery mechanisms for distracted driving resources. The findings provide valuable guidance for policymakers in establishing and communicating information and road rules for distracted driving.

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.

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.

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.