"Like it's wrong, but it's not that wrong:" Exploring the normalization of risk-compensatory strategies among young drivers engaging in illegal smartphone use

Normative influences on young drivers' illegal smartphone use: Applying an extended Theory of Normative Social Behaviour

In the 12 months to November 2021, 19 % of the people killed on Australian roads were aged between 17 and 25 years, despite this age group making up just 12 % of the driving population. A substantial number of these crashes resulted from smartphone use. It is widely accepted that norms influence young drivers' smartphone use; however, there is a dearth of research investigating how different norms interact to influence this behaviour. The current survey study (N = 137) applied an extended Theory of Normative Social Behaviour (TNSB) to investigate illegal smartphone use among young drivers. The original TNSB model proposes that injunctive norm (i.e., perceived societal approval), outcome expectancies, and group identity each moderate the relationship between descriptive norm and behavioural intention. The current study added subjective norm (i.e., perceived approval from important others) to the model. Moderation analyses found that only subjective norm moderated the relationship between descriptive norm and behavioural intention, whereas subjective norm, injunctive norm, and outcome expectancies each partially mediated this relationship. These findings provided partial support for the TNSB. They highlighted the influence of a range of norms on young drivers' smartphone use (i.e., descriptive norm, subjective norm, and injunctive norm) and, in particular, the influence of subjective norm in this context. It also highlights the importance of investigating how norms interact with each other to influence the relationship between descriptive norm and behavioural intention. In accordance with these findings, future public education messages should challenge normative influences, and subjective norm in particular, on young drivers' smartphone use.

Mobile phone penalties and road crashes: Are changes in sanctions effective?

INTRODUCTION

Road crashes are a major, preventable cause of death and serious injury. Being distracted by a mobile phone while driving can increase the risk of a crash by three to four times and increase crash severity. To reduce distracted driving, on 1 March 2017 the penalty for using a hand-held mobile phone while driving in Britain doubled to ₤200 and six penalty points.

METHOD

We examine the effects of this increased penalty on numbers of serious or fatal crashes over 6 weeks either side of the intervention using Regression Discontinuity in Time.

RESULTS

We find no effect of the intervention, suggesting the increased penalty is not effective in reducing the more serious road crashes.

CONCLUSIONS

We rule out an information problem and an enforcement effect, concluding the increase in fines was insufficient to change behaviour. With very low detection rates of mobile phone use, our result could occur if the perceived certainty of punishment remained very low after the intervention.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

Future technology will increase the ability to detect mobile phone usage, and there may be fewer road crashes if the solution is to raise awareness of such technology and publicise numbers of offenders caught. Alternatively, a mobile phone blocking application could avert the problem.

Talking on the Phone While Driving: A Literature Review on Driving Simulator Studies

Distracted driving is a growing concern around the world and has been the focus of many naturalistic and simulator-based studies. Driving simulators provide excellent practical and theoretical help in studying the driving process, and considerable efforts have been made to prove their validity. This research aimed to review relevant simulator-based studies focused on investigating the effects of the talking-on-the-phone-while-driving distraction on drivers' behavior. This work is a scoping review which followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The search was performed on five databases, covering twenty years of research results. It was focused on finding answers to three research questions that could offer an overview of the main sources of distraction, the research infrastructure, and the measures that were used to analyze and predict the effects of distractions. A number of 4332 studies were identified in the database search, from which 83 were included in the review. The main findings revealed that TPWD distraction negatively affects driving performance, exposing drivers to dangerous traffic situations. Moreover, there is a general understanding that the driver's cognitive, manual, visual, and auditory resources are all involved, to a certain degree, when executing a secondary task while driving.

Taking the right course: The possibilities and challenges of offering alternatives to prosecution for drivers detected using mobile phones while driving

There is a considerable body of literature that outlines the dangers of mobile phone use by drivers. However, there is very little research that explores the role and effectiveness of attempts to tackle this specific road user problem. Generally, normative motives are more likely to generate compliance with traffic law, and are more likely to be developed through approaches which focus on engagement and education. There would seem to be little potential for them to be developed through the use of penalty points and fines, which rely on more instrumental logic. Nonetheless, the decision was made in the UK in recent years to cease offering 'courses' (inputs to detected phone-using drivers offered as an alternative to prosecution) for mobile phone offences. This decision was made despite a lack of evidence one way or another about their effectiveness in tackling both handheld mobile phone use and handsfree mobile phone distraction - a form of distraction not explicitly covered in law. This research project aimed to explore driver education as an alternative to prosecution for mobile phone use while driving offences, focusing on perceptions and experiences of one particular educational intervention. This paper draws on 46 semi-structured interviews with those involved in delivering a specific intervention aimed at reducing handheld mobile phone use by drivers that was previously offered as an alternative to prosecution in the UK; the police officers identifying offenders for referral to such courses, those delivering the intervention, drivers attending the course as an alternative to prosecution and members of the public attending the course as general education. Four key themes, with underpinning subthemes, emerged; 1) Police officer discretion and control over entry into the criminal justice system 2) Police-public interactions, 3) Course experiences, and 4) Post-course considerations. Firstly, police officer discretion is an important determinant of criminal justice system outcome, based on subjective rather than legal decisions about whether or not to report drivers for an offence. Secondly, police officers negotiate encounters with road users using the avoidance of prosecution as a way of diffusing difficult conversations, sometimes by offering a course as a preferable alternative to prosecution, sometimes by encouraging handsfree phone use. Thirdly, course attendance provides an opportunity to develop both normative alignment through increased understanding of police work, and to appreciate a range of instrumental consequences associated with mobile phone use. Both self-reportedly impacted upon mobile phone use while driving. Finally, post-course considerations emphasised a focus on who should be offered courses as an alternative to prosecution, focusing upon desires for both punitive and rehabilitative responses to mobile phone using drivers.