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

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

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

Mobile phone distracted driving is a major risk factor for crashes. However, this behaviour has been increasing in recent years. Effective enforcement of mobile phone bans while driving faces several obstacles; as such, it is important to consider additional countermeasures. Applications designed to prevent distracted driving are a promising solution, yet more research is needed that examines their effectiveness in reducing dangerous phone use while driving behaviours. Additionally, these applications are voluntary in nature; therefore, an understanding of drivers’ perceptions of the applications is necessary to determine how to improve uptake. A mixed methods design was utilised to examine these factors in a comprehensive manner. A total of 40 participants used the smartphone application “Do Not Disturb While Driving” for iOS phone operating systems or “Android Auto” for Android phone operating systems for approximately one week and completed three diary entries reporting on their experience. Two questionnaires that examined phone use while driving behaviours were also administered to participants; one before and one after completing the study. The quantitative results found that engagement in 1) visual-manual, 2) cognitive-auditory and 3) music mobile phone interactions significantly decreased while using the application. Distraction engagement and mental workload while driving also significantly decreased while using the application. The qualitative results identified a number of areas of improvement that need to be addressed, e.g. activation of the application and Bluetooth connection reliability. The features that required improvement presented an obstacle for effective use of the applications, and in some cases resulted in drivers deciding to stop using the application. Positive perceptions of the application were associated with the experiences of the application functioning appropriately and activating automatically. These results show that applications designed for voluntary use to prevent mobile phone distracted driving are a promising countermeasure, although current applications require several improvements.@en

Mobile phone distracted driving is a major risk factor for crashes. However, this behaviour has been increasing in recent years. Effective enforcement of mobile phone bans while driving faces several obstacles; as such, it is important to consider additional countermeasures. Applications designed to prevent distracted driving are a promising solution, yet more research is needed that examines their effectiveness in reducing dangerous phone use while driving behaviours. Additionally, these applications are voluntary in nature; therefore, an understanding of drivers’ perceptions of the applications is necessary to determine how to improve uptake. A mixed methods design was utilised to examine these factors in a comprehensive manner. A total of 40 participants used the smartphone application “Do Not Disturb While Driving” for iOS phone operating systems or “Android Auto” for Android phone operating systems for approximately one week and completed three diary entries reporting on their experience. Two questionnaires that examined phone use while driving behaviours were also administered to participants; one before and one after completing the study. The quantitative results found that engagement in 1) visual-manual, 2) cognitive-auditory and 3) music mobile phone interactions significantly decreased while using the application. Distraction engagement and mental workload while driving also significantly decreased while using the application. The qualitative results identified a number of areas of improvement that need to be addressed, e.g. activation of the application and Bluetooth connection reliability. The features that required improvement presented an obstacle for effective use of the applications, and in some cases resulted in drivers deciding to stop using the application. Positive perceptions of the application were associated with the experiences of the application functioning appropriately and activating automatically. These results show that applications designed for voluntary use to prevent mobile phone distracted driving are a promising countermeasure, although current applications require several improvements.@en

Driver inattention and distraction are recognised as two of the most critical factors for road safety worldwide. While roadside advertising is often identified as a potential source of distraction, it has received less attention compared to other types of distractions such as texting or calling while driving. Therefore, this study focused on the impact of roadside advertising signs on driver behaviour and road safety. To examine this, a theory-driven systematic literature review was undertaken. In total, 90 unique documents were identified and reviewed using the Task-Capability Interface (TCI) Model to explain the potential safety impact of roadside advertising. The findings confirmed that the TCI model is a useful tool for describing the relationship between roadside advertising and driver behaviour. From this perspective, roadside advertising signs can be considered environmental clutter, which adds additional demands to the driving task. In particular, roadside advertising signs impaired eye movement patterns of drivers. Additionally, it was demonstrated that the impact of roadside advertising on driving behaviour is greatly moderated by individual differences among drivers. Of great importance was that young drivers invest more attentional resources in interacting with roadside advertising, which suggests a lower capacity to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant driving information. Based on the available evidence, however, it is not possible to definitively conclude that there is a direct relationship between the driving behaviour changes attributed to roadside advertising and road crashes. Nonetheless, while most studies remain inconclusive, there is an emerging trend in the literature suggesting that roadside advertising can increase crash risk, particularly for those signs that have the capacity to frequently change (often referred to as digital billboards). Lastly, it is important to mention that most of the empirical studies undertaken to date feature strong methodological limitations. Consequently, there is an urgent need for more research in this area, given that roadside technology and the transport system are changing rapidly.@en

Driver inattention and distraction are recognised as two of the most critical factors for road safety worldwide. While roadside advertising is often identified as a potential source of distraction, it has received less attention compared to other types of distractions such as texting or calling while driving. Therefore, this study focused on the impact of roadside advertising signs on driver behaviour and road safety. To examine this, a theory-driven systematic literature review was undertaken. In total, 90 unique documents were identified and reviewed using the Task-Capability Interface (TCI) Model to explain the potential safety impact of roadside advertising. The findings confirmed that the TCI model is a useful tool for describing the relationship between roadside advertising and driver behaviour. From this perspective, roadside advertising signs can be considered environmental clutter, which adds additional demands to the driving task. In particular, roadside advertising signs impaired eye movement patterns of drivers. Additionally, it was demonstrated that the impact of roadside advertising on driving behaviour is greatly moderated by individual differences among drivers. Of great importance was that young drivers invest more attentional resources in interacting with roadside advertising, which suggests a lower capacity to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant driving information. Based on the available evidence, however, it is not possible to definitively conclude that there is a direct relationship between the driving behaviour changes attributed to roadside advertising and road crashes. Nonetheless, while most studies remain inconclusive, there is an emerging trend in the literature suggesting that roadside advertising can increase crash risk, particularly for those signs that have the capacity to frequently change (often referred to as digital billboards). Lastly, it is important to mention that most of the empirical studies undertaken to date feature strong methodological limitations. Consequently, there is an urgent need for more research in this area, given that roadside technology and the transport system are changing rapidly.@en

Driver inattention and distraction are recognised as two of the most critical factors for road safety worldwide. While roadside advertising is often identified as a potential source of distraction, it has received less attention compared to other types of distractions such as texting or calling while driving. Therefore, this study focused on the impact of roadside advertising signs on driver behaviour and road safety. To examine this, a theory-driven systematic literature review was undertaken. In total, 90 unique documents were identified and reviewed using the Task-Capability Interface (TCI) Model to explain the potential safety impact of roadside advertising. The findings confirmed that the TCI model is a useful tool for describing the relationship between roadside advertising and driver behaviour. From this perspective, roadside advertising signs can be considered environmental clutter, which adds additional demands to the driving task. In particular, roadside advertising signs impaired eye movement patterns of drivers. Additionally, it was demonstrated that the impact of roadside advertising on driving behaviour is greatly moderated by individual differences among drivers. Of great importance was that young drivers invest more attentional resources in interacting with roadside advertising, which suggests a lower capacity to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant driving information. Based on the available evidence, however, it is not possible to definitively conclude that there is a direct relationship between the driving behaviour changes attributed to roadside advertising and road crashes. Nonetheless, while most studies remain inconclusive, there is an emerging trend in the literature suggesting that roadside advertising can increase crash risk, particularly for those signs that have the capacity to frequently change (often referred to as digital billboards). Lastly, it is important to mention that most of the empirical studies undertaken to date feature strong methodological limitations. Consequently, there is an urgent need for more research in this area, given that roadside technology and the transport system are changing rapidly.@en

Distracted driving is one of the most prevalent risky behaviours worldwide. Research has highlighted that current approaches to distracted driving based on education and police enforcement have shown low effectiveness. Smartphone applications to reduce distracted driving are an emerging technology with the potential to prevent road crashes. However, recent evidence has shown that the adoption of these applications has been limited. A qualitative study was carried out to investigate the acceptability of smartphone applications that are designed to prevent distracted driving. A total of 35 drivers (57% females) aged 19–44 years (Mean = 28.43) participated in interviews which explored acceptability constructs for in-vehicle intelligent technology as defined by Regan et al. (2012): usefulness, usability, effectiveness, social acceptability, affordability, and willingness to use the application functions. Generally, drivers perceived that these applications have the potential to increase safety and reduce voluntary and involuntary mobile phone interactions while driving. Nonetheless, it was also found that drivers want to retain some of the functionalities of their mobile phone, such as music playing applications, accessing GPS/maps and being able to interact with certain groups of people through their phones while driving. Finally, barriers to the uptake of the applications among drivers who use their mobile phone while driving are discussed. A frequent barrier that needs to be overcome is the perceived need and pressure to respond to their phone while driving to communicate for work purposes or with people with strong social ties to the driver, for example, a parent or spouse.@en

Distracted driving is one of the most prevalent risky behaviours worldwide. Research has highlighted that current approaches to distracted driving based on education and police enforcement have shown low effectiveness. Smartphone applications to reduce distracted driving are an emerging technology with the potential to prevent road crashes. However, recent evidence has shown that the adoption of these applications has been limited. A qualitative study was carried out to investigate the acceptability of smartphone applications that are designed to prevent distracted driving. A total of 35 drivers (57% females) aged 19–44 years (Mean = 28.43) participated in interviews which explored acceptability constructs for in-vehicle intelligent technology as defined by Regan et al. (2012): usefulness, usability, effectiveness, social acceptability, affordability, and willingness to use the application functions. Generally, drivers perceived that these applications have the potential to increase safety and reduce voluntary and involuntary mobile phone interactions while driving. Nonetheless, it was also found that drivers want to retain some of the functionalities of their mobile phone, such as music playing applications, accessing GPS/maps and being able to interact with certain groups of people through their phones while driving. Finally, barriers to the uptake of the applications among drivers who use their mobile phone while driving are discussed. A frequent barrier that needs to be overcome is the perceived need and pressure to respond to their phone while driving to communicate for work purposes or with people with strong social ties to the driver, for example, a parent or spouse.@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

Research into phone use while driving has found that the threat of legal sanctions has limited effectiveness on reducing this behaviour, yet the impact of these countermeasures on concealed phone use has been frequently overlooked. This study sought to understand how legal enforcement and perceptions of safety influence concealed phone use while driving using a mixed methods approach. First, focus groups were conducted among young drivers aged between 17 and 25 years (n = 60). Observing police presence was identified as an effective deterrent, however it was also considered easy to evade detection. Reading messages while driving was the most common type of phone use while driving engaged in, and this behaviour can be considered easy to conceal; therefore, this behaviour was the focus of the subsequent quantitative study. A longitudinal repeated measures survey (n = 192) on young drivers was conducted 3 months apart to quantitatively examine the factors that influence subsequent engagement in concealed and general reading messages while driving. The results suggest that concealing the phone increases the incidence rates of phone use while driving behaviour. Punishment avoidance and perceptions of safety were: (a) highly correlated and (b) significantly predicted engagement in both concealed and general reading messages while driving. The results provide support for education campaigns that target perceptions of safety, as well as increasing apprehension certainty (e.g., via the implementation of cameras) in order for legal countermeasures to act as a larger deterrent, as opposed to counterintuitively influencing concealed phone use behaviour.@en

Mobile phone use while driving is a pervasive problem that continues to increase, notwithstanding the large crash risk this behaviour constitutes. A number of phone applications have been developed with the intention of utilising the technology to prevent dangerous phone behaviours while driving. Despite the potential these applications have in preventing crashes associated with distracted driving, research is yet to explore these emergent applications. Therefore, this study provided a review of the current smartphone applications developed to prevent distracted driving. A content analysis was conducted to identify the smartphone applications targeted at stopping, preventing or reducing phone use behaviour while driving. Their functionality was determined based on the ecosystem of smartphone applications: application-mobile phone interaction, application-driver interaction, and application-context interaction. A total of 29 relevant applications in English language were identified. Most of these applications focused on blocking specific phone functions (e.g. texting or calling) while allowing more desirable driving phone functions to be accessed (e.g. music applications and GPS functions). The specific functions which are blocked or allowed varied greatly between applications. Out of the different application interactions, the function which sends an automatic text message to a contact who texts the driver (associated with external communicator interactions) was the most common feature. A major limitation of the applications was their reliance on blocking specific phone functions as opposed to managing workload while driving or simplifying specific phone tasks to be more compatible with driving. Simply blocking phone functions may not be attractive to drivers who view their phone as a necessity. As such, these drivers are unlikely to use these voluntary applications at all while driving. Smartphone applications designed to prevent phone use while driving show potential for playing a large role in a systemic intervention to prevent mobile phone distracted driving, yet there is a substantial need for further development of these applications.@en

Mobile phone use while driving is a pervasive problem that continues to increase, notwithstanding the large crash risk this behaviour constitutes. A number of phone applications have been developed with the intention of utilising the technology to prevent dangerous phone behaviours while driving. Despite the potential these applications have in preventing crashes associated with distracted driving, research is yet to explore these emergent applications. Therefore, this study provided a review of the current smartphone applications developed to prevent distracted driving. A content analysis was conducted to identify the smartphone applications targeted at stopping, preventing or reducing phone use behaviour while driving. Their functionality was determined based on the ecosystem of smartphone applications: application-mobile phone interaction, application-driver interaction, and application-context interaction. A total of 29 relevant applications in English language were identified. Most of these applications focused on blocking specific phone functions (e.g. texting or calling) while allowing more desirable driving phone functions to be accessed (e.g. music applications and GPS functions). The specific functions which are blocked or allowed varied greatly between applications. Out of the different application interactions, the function which sends an automatic text message to a contact who texts the driver (associated with external communicator interactions) was the most common feature. A major limitation of the applications was their reliance on blocking specific phone functions as opposed to managing workload while driving or simplifying specific phone tasks to be more compatible with driving. Simply blocking phone functions may not be attractive to drivers who view their phone as a necessity. As such, these drivers are unlikely to use these voluntary applications at all while driving. Smartphone applications designed to prevent phone use while driving show potential for playing a large role in a systemic intervention to prevent mobile phone distracted driving, yet there is a substantial need for further development of these applications.@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