Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Rejali et al. (Tue,) studied this question.