Mobile phone use is one of the most frequent causes of distraction among drivers. While there have been a significant number of studies that have examined individuals’ intentions to use a mobile phone while driving, the influence of individuals’ in-situ judgement of driving conditions has received considerably less attention. The aim of this investigation was to provide a systematic understanding of how factors associated with the driving context and environment influence a driver's decision to engage in mobile phone use while driving. Following a systematic classification scheme, 41 research articles from the years 2011 to 2020 were reviewed and synthesised to identify the contextual determinants of mobile phone distraction. Overall, the findings provided support for the role that contextual features play in influencing individuals’ mobile phone use engagement. This finding was particularly the case in instances where mobile phone tasks required relatively high cognitive and physical demands on an individual, such as texting and/or reading mails. The findings also indicated that as contextual complexity increases, mobile phone use decreases as well. A deeper understanding of the relationship between contextual factors and phone use while driving may aid in the design of more efficient driver support systems and the development of distraction-sensitive road design guides. This understanding can also assist in the identification of mobile phone use hotspots and the improvement of law enforcement and educational strategies to prevent the behaviour.

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.

The study applied the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to explore motorcycle riders’ underlying behavioural, normative, and control beliefs towards Advanced Rider Assistance Systems (ARAS). Each belief was explored in terms of three categories of technologies, (i) advanced technologies that help riders manage riding according to situations and conditions, (ii) advanced technologies that help riders to stop, and (iii) advanced technologies that help riders to corner. Eight focus groups were conducted with 39 motorcycle riders (Mage = 44.54 years, 27 males) who resided in Australia. First, participants completed a short online questionnaire which asked demographic information (e.g., age, gender, riding experience), before taking part in a 50-minute semi-structured online focus group. Participants’ knowledge of ARAS differed depending on the type of technology, with most participants reporting good to excellent knowledge of cruise control and standard anti-lock braking system (ABS) and a poor to fair understanding of selectable riding modes and cornering ABS. For behavioural beliefs, two common advantages reported for all three categories of technologies were safety and that the technologies would benefit new riders or riders with less experience. The three common disadvantages included concerns over riders’ reliance on the technologies, cost, and loss of skill or false sense of security. For normative beliefs, participants reported that their loved ones (i.e., partner, family, and friends) would approve of them using these technologies, with participants perceiving that ‘purists’ (i.e., riders who prefer to ride traditional motorcycles) would disapprove. For control beliefs, cost, lack of information on the safety of advanced technologies, and not being able to switch off systems were reported as barriers to use. Lowering insurance premiums, education/test rides, technologies as selectable options, and availability, were all identified as factors that would encourage use of ARAS. By providing information about ARAS, riders will become more informed about ARAS, which may enhance trust and user acceptance. Additionally, ongoing research and development are essential to ensure the evaluation and improvement of ARAS and mitigate any unintended consequences.