Introduction and literature review

Distracted driving is a key factor in road crashes (Dingus et al. 2016; WHO 2018). Distraction can occur for several reasons including events inside or outside the vehicle (CDCP 2022). Distractions within the vehicle include interacting with passengers, eating and drinking, and technology. Technological distractions can be caused by interacting with the vehicle via the human machine interface (HMI) of infotainment systems and advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS)—designed to keep the driver safe by alerts and/or vehicle corrections and using portable devices, such as mobile phones (Bates et al. 2021). In-vehicle technologies, both HMI of infotainment systems and ADAS have increased in use over time, with some adding to the complexity of the driving task and leading to more technology-based distractions (Caird et al. 2018; Oviedo-Trespalacios et al. 2016; Simmons et al. 2016; WHO 2018). Different systems use a variety of sensory input methods, for example, touch (keyboards/touchscreens), vision (displays or warning lights), and sound (voice or alarms), all potentially causing driver distraction (Bates et al. 2021).

There is significant evidence that the use of handheld and handsfree mobile phones is distracting (Edwards & Wundersitz 2019; National Safety Council 2012; WHO 2011). However, the extent to which in-vehicle technologies cause distraction is unclear (Stephan 2020). This paper examines distractions caused by in-vehicle technologies and mobile phones.

Regulation of distracted driving

Regulatory frameworks are rules endorsed by government with the expectation of compliance by individuals and organisations (DPC 2020). Within the road safety space, regulation is an important component for creating behaviour change on the roads (Bates et al. 2012). However, regulation of the diverse range of distracted driving behaviours, including those related to the vehicle itself, is limited, except for the use of handheld mobile phone whilst driving. For instance, in most Western societies the use of handheld mobile phones whilst driving is banned, however, handsfree mobile phone use or other forms of technology in the vehicle are rarely regulated (Bates et al. 2021). Despite research suggesting an association between comprehensive bans of handheld mobile use and few driver fatalities (Zhu et al. 2021), with the effectiveness varying across age, gender and geographical location (Carpenter & Nguyen 2015; Ehsani et al. 2016; Flaherty et al. 2020; Rudisill et al. 2018a, b; Rudisill & Zhu 2017; Rudisill et al. 2019). While regulations may be in place for handheld mobile phone use, handsfree use is less likely to be regulated, despite being similarly distracting (Fitch et al. 2013; Hendrick & Switzer 2007; Haque & Washington 2013). A study of 164 young driver learners in China perceived that handsfree mobile phone use was safer than handheld use (Zhou, et al. 2009) with further research from New Zealand suggesting that drivers do not fully support a ban on handsfree mobile phone use (Hallett, et al. 2011).

Distracted driving represents challenges for legislative measures to ‘keep up’ with the rapidly evolving landscape of technological advancements (Wells & Savigar 2019) and the accelerating rate of societal changes and shifts in attitudes (Rosa & Sheuerman 2009). This may be why there does not appear to be legislation or regulation regarding vehicle technology related distraction. Despite research suggesting that drivers considered in-vehicle warning systems, one type of this technology, distracting (Thompson et al. 2016). There is a suggestion that the development of a distraction rating system may assist consumers to understand the level of distracted driving associated with human machine interfaces in various vehicles (Imberger et al. 2020).

Enforcement of distracted driving

Enforcement of the law is a key component leading to driver behaviour change (Bates et al. 2012) with visible police enforcement possibly providing other benefits including improved perceptions of procedural justice and police legitimacy (Tudor-Owen 2021). Enforcement of distracted driving is typically centred around handheld mobile phone use despite the associated difficulties (Nevin et al. 2017; Rudisill et al. 2018a, b). These difficulties may be because of the numerous barriers to enforcement. Research with police officers located in Ohio in the United States indicates these barriers include mobile phone use while driving being a secondary offence for adults, not being able to determine the age of the driver and that it is difficult to prove the driver was using a mobile phone (Shoots-Reinhard et al. 2022; Rudisill & Zhu 2021).

Research with Australian young drivers suggests that police enforcement may not be an effective deterrent to mobile phone use while driving. For instance, young drivers do not appear deterred from using social media while driving by the certainty, severity and swiftness of sanctions from police officers. Truelove et al. (2019) reviewed the use of one form of social media, Snapchat, and found punishment avoidance and perceived safety affected the use while driving. Their research further highlighting that typical forms of police enforcement for mobile phone use whilst driving may not be effective (Truelove et al. 2019). Additionally, Australian research with younger drivers suggests that police enforcement of mobile phone bans use may encourage drivers to engage in concealed phone use which may be a riskier form of behaviour (Truelove et al. 2021).

Other forms of in-vehicle technological distraction are even more difficult to identify and address (Bates et al. 2021). Often distractions caused by other in-vehicle technology, are not possible to identify until after an incident making enforcement even more difficult (Bates et al. 2021). In some contexts, there is less focus on distracted driving. For example, a study of home-care nurses in Sweden and truck drivers in the USA, indicate some work cultures allow or even re-enforce the interaction with a technological device (e.g. mobile phone) whilst driving (Jonasson 2017; Swedler et al. 2015).

Third-party policing as an approach

Third-party policing enables police to engage non-police agencies through the use of formal and informal levers to perform an enforcement role (van Felius et al. 2023). Legal levers are defined by Mazerolle et al. (2016) as ‘the legal powers possessed by third parties that create a crime control or crime prevention capacity that is otherwise unavailable to police’ (p. 9). This is the defining feature of third-party policing: the use of the existing formal and informal legal levers of non-policing parties to perform a crime control or prevention role (Mazerolle & Ransley 2006; Ransley 2016). Whilst the concept was initially theorised as the police agency seeking activation of legal levers of third parties, Van Felius et al.’s (2023) research indicates that any agency can, either collaboratively or coercively, influence another entity to activate their legal levers.

Considering the difficulties associated with regulating and enforcing distracted driving by police agencies, third-party policing may be a viable alternative. Research has shown that third-party policing is effective in reducing social or crime problems in a variety of contexts (Hoshino & Kamada 2020; Kleemans & Huisman 2015; Mazerolle & Ransley 2006; Mazerolle et al. 2017; Morton et al. 2019; Scott 2018). Within a road safety context, there has been a suggestion that third-party policing involving parents as the third party may be an effective approach for managing young drivers’ traffic offending (Belsham et al. 2019, 2020). However, there has been no evaluation of this approach. The engagement of third parties to reduce distracted driving has received no attention in the literature.

Aims of paper

This paper has two aims. Firstly, the literature review above identified that in-vehicle technologies contribute to distracting drivers. However, how and why this occurs has received limited attention. Therefore, the first aim of this paper is to further explore this point. Secondly, there is limited effective enforcement of distracted driving by traditional police approaches. Thus, there is a need to reduce this behaviour through alternative approaches. This is the second aim of this paper, exploring how the implementation and use of formal legal levers of third parties can be used to reduce distracted driving.

Method

The two aims of this study were addressed through the use of qualitative interviews with road safety experts in two countries. The qualitative approach used allowed exploration of these issues in depth (Bryman 2012; Lune & Berg 2017). As preparation for the interviews and to understand the broader context, a review of the distracted driving legislative frameworks for jurisdictions operating within a Western society context was conducted. This included Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Canada, because of their Commonwealth connection; the Netherlands and Sweden as representative of European jurisdictions with a strong focus on road safety; and Canada and the USA, because of their multiple jurisdictions within one nation, which is similar to Australia.

Participants

As part of a larger research project, the research team compiled a list of agencies involved with road safety across Australia and the United Kingdom (UK). This list was compiled with the assistance of the Australian Automobile Association and further Google searches for entities and individuals involved in road safety and LinkedIn searches to connect with these individuals. Agencies approached to participate in this research included: (1) Australian State and Territory law enforcement, (2) motoring clubs, (3) government agencies regulating safe workplaces, (4) road safety organisations, (5) government transport departments, (6) research entities, and (7) private entities with large commercial fleets. The research entities and road safety organisations included both entities from Australia and the United Kingdom. Two or three agencies from each of the above categories were contacted outlining the research, asked to participate and nominate a representative. A conditional limitation was placed on the number of participants to recruit was based on the overall objectives of the larger research project. All nominated representatives were contacted via email, invited to participate and provided with an information sheet and consent form. This resulted in twelve virtual interviews being conducted via Teams. In addition, two agencies asked for the interview schedule in advance and subsequently provided written responses, with the comment that these represented the view of their team or agency. At least one representative of each of the nominated seven groups participated in this research, with some groups having representatives from three different entities. Of the fourteen agencies participating in this research, two were based in the UK and twelve in Australia.

Semi-structured interviews were used to explore the key constructs of this study: the main causes of in-vehicle distraction, and the role of third parties in addressing this form of distracted driving. With agreement, all interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. All transcriptions were returned to the participants for review. The interviews ranged from 45 to 60 min in duration and were conducted between 13 October 2020 and 10 November 2020. Each interview participant was provided with a unique identifier, starting with a ‘P’. Those participants who opted for a joint response were provided with a unique identifier starting with ‘MP’. The study received approval from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (2020/759).

Analysis

The interview transcriptions and written responses were analysed using both inductive and deductive methods. Based on the research questions, the text was initially deductively analysed. During this process, other themes were identified, and inductive analysis was used (Braun & Clarke 2006). The analysis was conducted in four stages: stage (1) understanding the data using broad coding derived from research aims; stage (2) identifying patterns in and between the themes and subthemes; stage (3) understanding what links the themes and subthemes and influences the themes and subthemes; and stage (4) formalising and systemising the data in a coherent set of explanations (Houghton et al. 2015; Miles et al. 1994; Morse 1994). In this study, the analysis was undertaken by the same person (MF) who conducted the interviews to ensure consistency and continuity in the analytical process. As necessary, other members of the research team were consulted to provide expertise and external validation.

Results

The results of the interviews are explained in two main sections. Firstly, what interviewees considered causing technological distractions in vehicles, and secondly, who they identified as having a role in addressing distracted driving caused by these technological distractions. The technological distractions identified by the interviewees were the HMI of infotainment systems, in-vehicle safety technologies, and mobile phones. Each of these are discussed in greater detail below. In addition, the interviewees nominated car manufacturers, vehicle retailers, employers with a commercial fleet and sole commercial operators, as entities that could play a third-party policing in addressing distracted driving. Their interviewees’ rationale is explained below.

Technological distractions in vehicles

Participants raised concerns that modern cars are increasingly fitted with technology that has the potential to causes distractions. They suggested that technology that is part of the car can broadly be divided into two categories: HMI of infotainment systems and ADAS. In addition, participants commented on the dangers of technology that is brought into the vehicle, especially mobile phones.

HMI of infotainment systems

Regarding the HMI of infotainment systems, participants considered them to be distracting (P1, P2, P3, P5, P9, P10, MP4): a ‘HMI system is increasingly marketed as a safety feature’ (P3), and as they are legal and manufacturers are building them in cars, people do not regard these systems as unsafe (P3). However, participants suggested that this emerging technology in cars is problematic (P3, P5, P9, P10); the HMI of some infotainment systems is very complex and still require touching and significant focus and take significant cognitive space (P5, P9, P10). Even those systems that allow voice activation are considered distracting (P10), as this quote suggests:

"they do allow voice activation, which we're not really happy about because research shows you can be distracted for at least 18 seconds after, you know, spitting out a voice command" (P10).

However, participants commented that it is not only the cognitive requirements of the interaction with the HMI of infotainment systems that is a concern (P2, P3, P5, P9), it is also the placement of the mechanisms to engage with the vehicle, with two participants suggesting that this can impact on the visual field, causing distraction (P1, P6). Despite these concerns, car manufacturers are increasingly equipping engagement technology in vehicles, as this feature helps to sell cars (P3, P10):

“an issue here is drivers think that as the manufacturer has provided it, it is safe to use, when this is most often not the case” (P10); and

“they are legal, but they’re also being marketed in a way that suggests make driving more rewarding, so it’s not rewarding enough to get somewhere safely without killing anybody, you now have to make that driving experience more interesting because it’s quite boring driving a car—the manufacturers who have made it boring by making it so assisted and so smooth are now giving us extra things to fill our brains because they think we’re not—there is not enough of our brain being used to drive” (P3).

In-vehicle safety technologies

Some participants suggested ADASs, whilst needing to warn or engage the driver, may also be distracting to the driving task (P1, P2, P7). The activation of the built-in systems, when deviating from driving, that is outside the vehicle’s safety patterns may surprise the driver and cause distraction (P1, P2, P6, P7):

"you're distracted by wondering what ... because the alarm sound is the same for all of them. So, whether it's lane departure or obstacle detection or the vehicle in front has moved, the audible sound is the same. So, you end up having to look down at the dashboard" (P7); and

"a lot of this sort of in-vehicle warnings, etc. fall into, where if they come up at the wrong moment, they could have the unfortunate element of distracting you from something really important that you should be aware of" (P2).

Other participants raised further concerns, such as: over time people might become desensitised to ADAS alarms, and the brain will no longer register them (P6); or when the driver is unaware of the ADAS technology and the vehicle auto-corrects itself (P6). For example, with lane departure features, it has the potential to distract the driver by focussing on what the car is doing and not what is going on around them (P6).

Two participants commented that these in-vehicle safety technological features can also increase risk when the driver is used to driving with these features and then swaps to a vehicle where the built-in safety features are not present or switched off (P2, P6):

"the highest risk is if you take them [drivers] out and put them into a number one [the main family vehicle], and suddenly they're looking around for the camera or this or the blind spots, and they've got to go back to holy crap I've got to use mirrors, and you get caught out" (P6); and

"and then I suddenly get into another vehicle which doesn't have those features, then there might be some risks there because I expect the vehicle to do stuff that it doesn't do" (P2).

Other participants raised concerns that a driver may become over-reliant on ADAS to keep them safe, and subsequently become complacent (P2, P5, P8, P9, P10, MP4), which might lead to driver inattention (P2, P5, P8, MP4) or reduction in situational awareness (P5):

"if you start leaving the lane, the lane assist keeps you in the lane, so that's good for preventing a crash, but it also I guess perversely can encourage you to pay less attention in the first place, because it's like 'oh if I don't pay attention the vehicle will sort it out" (P2); and

"it reduces the demands on the driver ... the unfortunate implication of that is it also acts to reduce that driver's situational awareness" (P5).

Mobile phones

Participants considered that distracted driving is often synonymous with handheld mobile phone use. When asked for the rationale for this, participants commented that it is one the most dangerous distractions (P2, P3, P5, P9, P10, MP4), because:

“it's one of the few causes of distraction that triggers all 4 types of distraction, from cognitive, visual, manual and auditory” (MP4).

When participants were asked if handsfree use changes the level of distraction, most participants argued that it does not reduce the amount of distracted driving, it ‘just changes the form of it’ (P3), and unfortunately handsfree mobile phone use is becoming the ‘default safe option’ (P3) for drivers. It is not safer at all as it still takes the same cognitive attention away from the driving task (P2, P3, P5, P9). It is the actual conversation itself that distracts the most (P5, P9), as this quote explains in detail:

“if you're talking about a conversation, a phone conversation, we were able to demonstrate that when you have a conversation with someone who isn’t physically present in the room or in the vehicle with you, you tend to create mental images based on what they're discussing, where they are, what they're describing. And mental imagery uses the same brain areas and the same cognitive resources that are needed for visual perception. So, in effect you’ve got competition between your phone task and your driving task, for these precious cognitive resources, and if the phone conversation wins those resources, that can explain why a driver can look directly at a hazard yet fail to see it” (P5).

Additionally, as two participants commented, handsfree mobile phone use usually requires touching the phone at some stage, and depending on the complexity of making or answering that call, it still takes the visual focus away from the road for a period of time (P2, P9), as explained in this quote:

“at some point you may need to press a button on the phone to make the call or to hang up, and I guess that’s often the most problematic part of the time when you actually, again your eyes are totally focused away from the road” (P2).

Role of third parties

Participants were asked how distracted driving caused by the HMI of in-vehicle technology (infotainment systems), ADAS and mobile phones can be addressed. The policy scan conducted as part of the larger research project indicates that most Western societies have some countermeasures in place for handheld mobile phone use; however, the effectiveness is dependent on police resources (Bates et al. 2021). Other technologies seem less regulated, as discussed in the above sections. Subsequently participants were asked how this could be addressed. The suggestions included further regulations for car manufacturers and retailers, and fleet and sole commercial operators.

Car manufacturers

Participants reported they saw a gap between the level of technology manufacturers are building in their vehicles and their impact on road safety (P1, P2, P5, P6, MP4). Participants expressed concerns infotainment systems in vehicles are increasingly marketed as making vehicles ‘fun to drive’ (P3). However, not all manufacturers adopt similar technological features, and there is little third-party governance regarding their impact on the driving task of these systems:

“car manufacturers putting technology into vehicle which sells a version of safety that people want, because everyone wants the tech in the cars because it looks good and it's handy and it's useful. But actually, it's not stringently tested for safety, and it ignores all of the cognitive psychological research in the area which tells you that you really shouldn’t be doing this” (P5).

Participants did not consider all HMI interactions as safe, and one suggested that the amount of technology that is making its way into vehicles is a problem (P1), with some industry leaders suggesting that more in-vehicle technology is generally considered better, which is not always the case (P6):

“we give out these awards to these beautiful designs of these high-end cars and you have to toggle and you've got to move through all these screens whilst you're going, got to rotate through to find the one thing you want to change, because apparently having buttons on a thing looks horrible, so you've got to focus on that to find where you are when you're driving. Whereas then I think it was the Ford Focus where everything is a one-press button for everything was viewed as disgusting and got badly scored because it was an eyesore, but from a safety point of view it's one-touch and bang you're away” (P6).

According to some participants, there is a need for more regulation of car manufacturers to ensure HMI of infotainment systems and ADAS are safe and not adding to driver distraction (P2, P5, MP4). Participants observed that some regulatory responses need to be developed (P2, P5), or at least be given some third-party oversight to assess whether both these new technologies are safe (MP4):

“the amount of technology that's making its way into vehicles is a big problem, particularly because it doesn't seem to be regulated” (P5); and

“those principles are industry generated, they're voluntary and they haven’t really, at least up until now, been subject to any kind of rigorous third-party review or audit” (MP4).

Vehicle retailers

Some participants commented that vehicle retailers also have a significant role to play in ensuring ADASs are not adding to driver distraction (P2, P3, MP4). When people buy a car, either new or used, they want these technological features; however, often do not know how to use them (P3). Many people do not read the user manual as they are massive documents (MP4):

“they’re like desirable but then you don’t really want them because you’ve got to do homework to find out what you actually do with them” (P3).

One participant commented that ADASs have the potential to reduce the risk of collisions. However people need to educate themselves, otherwise it negates the positive effects (P9):

“these technologies do have the potential to reduce the risk of being involved in collisions, but what is really important is that the driver when they collect that vehicle is taught how to understand all of those different cues and feedback” (P9).

A big risk is when people do not understand the vehicle’s ADAS features (P1, P2, P6, P8), they will ignore them or switch them off, with the potential to de-skill or desensitise:

"when someone buys a new vehicle, they don't really get any training as to how, they can get their manual and stuff and look it up themselves, but I think we're not really tapping into the benefits that we could if they knew how to use things and – because what people do if they're not sure about something they'll just turn it off" (P8); and

“this comes down to: are people taught to understand what the different sounds are, or they just get in the car and there you go best of luck with it all. Because otherwise I think it deskills and just desensitises people and they just switch off to it. And that's why I think when you get reversing cameras and all those other bits and pieces, it dumbs you down, which I think from what I understand is you're seeing an increase in the number of small incidents and bingles as a result, because people get more reliant on it” (P6).

Employers—commercial vehicles

Work, health and safety regulations in Australia and the UK recognise vehicles that are used for a commercial purpose are a workplace (Bates et al. 2021). Whilst this is increasingly recognised by road safety organisations, this is not always the case amongst employers as these two participants commented: vehicles are not always recognised as such (MP4), and there are some grey areas (P7):

“in the workplace, health and safety area are the people who still really don’t see the vehicles as a workplace, they still think don’t see them as worksites, and then we don't have resourcing in the compliance side of the investigation side of the workplace health and safety regulator areas, the government agencies, to actually investigate a crash and whether there was some fault or some expectation of an employer on an employee that led to an employee having a crash” (MP4); and

“vehicles may well in many instances be considered as a workplace, they're not all considered as workplaces. There are some grey areas in it” (P7).

The other difficulty is the enforcement of work, health and safety regulation (P2, P6, P7). It is ‘still a very immature area in terms of legislation [for distracted driving]’ (P7). The primary focus is on fatigue (P2, P6, P7) and even that is not easily enforceable. Under work, health and safety regulations, distracted driving has the potential to be enforceable when detection driver monitoring systems are also installed in light commercial and passenger vehicles, however that is still rare, as suggested by this participant:

"the legislation really only comes back to fatigue. If the distraction software that [Company X] had you know tells me that the guy or the girl had 26 micro naps before they crashed the truck, despite the fact that they’d only been driving for 3 hours, then I wouldn’t have an issue prosecuting them if I wanted to for fatigue. But if they didn’t have the driver distraction software and they had a crash after 3 hours, we wouldn’t be prosecuting them for fatigue because we would have no ability to be able to demonstrate that they were actually tired” (P7).

Two participants commented that mobile phone use in light commercial and passenger vehicles is a continuing issue (P3, P9). Some companies are still expecting their workers to answer phone calls (P3):

“most of them will say ‘you will get sacked for using your phone handheld – never pick up the phone when you’re driving' but most of them will still have an implicit or explicit expectation that you do answer calls handsfree because it’s legal” (P3).

However, participants stated that even handsfree phone use is very distracting and whilst it is legal, should not be allowed in any commercial and passenger vehicles (P3, P9). As two participants suggested it is difficult to change the mindset of employers; either because they are not aware that it is still very distracting or because it is inversely related to productivity (P3, P9):

“employers are split between productivity and what they want their drivers to do” (P3): and

“there is still some pressure in some organisations where drivers feel like they have to answer their phone, or they might be under pressure to get to their destination quickly” (P9).

Two participants suggested that the focus should be on what is safe (P3), and it should be a two-way conversation (P6). Participants further commented that there are significant opportunities for employers to improve road safety (P1, P3, P6, P8, MP4):

“there's also a role there particularly around distraction and mobile phones of making sure that employers aren’t expecting employees to be answering their phones and taking calls and responding to text messages and having meetings, using their phone or using their phone illegally whilst they are driving, particularly if they spend a lot of time on the road” (MP4).

Some participants suggested more employers should take greater responsibility to reduce distracted driving by encouraging or even not allowing employees to use their mobile phone while driving (P6, P7, P8, P11). Two participants went even further, suggesting that when employers are not taking work, health and safety regulations seriously, there should be stricter enforcement of their duty of care (P6, P8, P9):

“they're more worried about their potential liability, so they might say to employee once ‘oh you’ve agreed not to use your phone’ or, and things like that, so they can almost if something does happen their accountability is decreased in their eyes” (P8); and

“there's kind of cause and permit offences that businesses can be charged with. So, if the boss is expecting a driver to answer their handheld phone whilst they are on the road, the business can be charged with causing or permitting the driver to do that, so that acts as a deterrent to them encouraging drivers to do that whilst they are on the road” (P9).

One participant suggested the implementation of specific national laws for distracted driving in the workplace are needed as well as increasing the awareness of the dangers mobile phone use, both handheld and handsfree, for employers:

“I don’t think there are specific laws, regulations around distracted driving at that high level, it's just kind of at the company level. And at the company level in a lot of places, it's a big mess” (P5); and

“the distinction between what employees and management think is acceptable, and the employees understanding of the mobile phone policy compared to the management understanding, is quite shocking” (P5).

Sole commercial operators

Participants raised specific concerns for sole operators. Within the light vehicle space (both light commercial vehicles and passenger cars/SUVs), there are many sole operators, such as single contractors, taxi drivers and rideshare operators driving light vehicles for business purposes. For these drivers, the application of the work, health and safety regulations falls in a grey area. They often drive long distances and long hours and their level of interaction with a mobile phone, or other technological devices is high (P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P11). Participants were specifically concerned that these drivers are reliant on their technological device to get the next job (P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P11), and they are dependent on that next job to make a living.

“they're relying on the next job to make a living and you know you can understand them being, they’d be looking at that screen all the time, even when you're – I’ve been in a taxi and you can see that the halfway to where you're going and then they're sort of looking and planning where they might pick up their next job from, where they're dropping you off” (P8); and

“there's people like Uber, and fast-food delivery companies where the driver actually has to interact with their phone as part of their job” (P9).

There are differences across sole commercial operators, as one participant commented: taxis and rideshare agencies deliver the same service, but there are significant differences between them. This participant further explained that taxi drivers are more regulated and must comply with a Code of Conduct (P11). This Code of Conduct includes strict requirements around interaction with a mobile phone or other device (P2, P11) as well as some level of training (P2, P11). Neither of which are necessarily true for rideshare drivers, exposing them to greater risk of distracted driving:

“the advantage with groups like taxi drivers is because they're professional employed drivers, and there's regulations around their use, I guess they have certain levels of training etc that they have to go through, and so it's actually much easier to enforce higher standards and to ensure that you put in place practices and regulations that control what they do” (P2).

Discussion

This study has demonstrated that stakeholders in the road safety space have clear concerns that driver distraction is increasingly caused by vehicles fitted with infotainment systems and ADAS, the latter marketed to keep drivers safe. However, there is little regulation, and law enforcement agencies have limited scope in addressing these issues. The concerns raised in this study that the HMI of infotainment systems and ADAS can cause driver distraction are consistent with a 4-week diary study of 19 participants conducted in the United Kingdom. This study identified that interaction with the HMI of infotainment systems contributed significantly to distractions whilst driving (Parnell et al. 2020). This study further found that all interactions with the HMI of the infotainment system were initiated by the driver (Parnell et al. 2020). Parnell et al. (2020) findings are further consistent with a naturalistic driving study of 122 Truck drivers in Australia, which indicated that ADAS had the potential to reduce a crash; however, the drivers found it to be distracting (Thompson et al. 2016).

This research shows that the concerns that in-vehicle technologies can cause driver distraction are valid. In addition, policy makers believe that, with the possible exception of handheld mobile phones, traditional police enforcement is not effective at reducing driver distraction (Bates et al. 2021). Distracted driving and driving without due care and attention is subject to current enforcement legislation in western societies. However, the legislation is non-specific, and the legislation often cannot be enforced until after a crash has occurred (Bates et al. 2021). In some jurisdictions mobile phone detection cameras are present. However, apart from these examples, research has identified there are difficulties associated with the enforcement of using handheld mobile phones whilst driving (Shoots-Reinhard et al. 2022; Rudisill & Zhu 2021). The results of this current study indicate that more innovative approaches are needed.

There was consensus amongst the participants that for the three types of distractions, mobile phone use, interactions with the HMI of infotainment systems and ADAS, third parties may have a role to play in reducing distracted driving. The use of third parties has been shown to reduce offending in a range of contexts including liquor supply regulations (Scott 2018), truancy (Mazerolle et al. 2017), organised crime (Hoshino & Kamada 2020; Kleemans & Huisman 2015), reducing amphetamine production (Webster et al. 2018), drug trafficking in hotels (Morton et al. 2019), drug market interventions (Frabutt et al. 2009) and youth homicide and firearms violence (Braga et al. 2017). Additionally, despite not being evaluated, it appears that there is scope for a third-party policing approach in roads policing (Belsham et al. 2019, 2020). This research suggests that, in the current context, third parties have the potential to assist with addressing driver distractions. In this study, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle retailers, employers with commercial and passenger fleets, and overseers of sole operators were identified as some potential third parties that could have a role to play in the context of distracted driving caused by the HMI of infotainment and ADAS as well as mobile phone use whilst driving.

This research suggests that vehicle manufacturers could be subjected to more regulation and oversight by third parties to ensure that the HMI of infotainment systems does not cause unintended consequences, or through implementing a requirement for some similarities and consistencies between systems. Currently, most of the industry is self-regulated, with some countries exercising some government control (UNECE 2023). There is little harmonisation across the global manufacturing of vehicles, and the design and requirements for HMI of infotainment systems are poorly legislated (NCAP 2023; UNECE 2023). As part of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), there are avenues to regulate vehicle safety standards worldwide (UNECE 2023). However, these standards focus on fuel efficiency, emission standards and occupant protection of vehicle safety, such as seatbelts and reducing collision impact. The design and placement of the HMI for infotainment systems is not included (UNECE 2023; NCAP 2023). The focus of consumer safety ratings via New Car Assessment Programs (NCAP) is on keeping the driver and other occupants safe when a crash occurs or to avoid a crash. More recently, NCAPs are including assessment of driver inattention and/or impairment (UNECE 2023; NCAP 2023: ANCAP 2023; Euro NCAP 2023; FCAI 2023).

As an extension to car manufacturers, participants in this study suggested that car retailers may also have a role to play by educating buyers. Whilst UNECE, NCAP and others are promoting vehicle safety and advancing ADAS to keep the driver safe, buyer education is lagging (UNECE 2023; NCAP 2023; FCAI 2023). Currently the regulation of car retailers primarily focuses on the legality of transactions, financial advice, guarantees and warranties, and distribution (ACCC 2018; Macaualy 2020; Murry 2018). Buyers of vehicles consider technology that keeps them safe as very important; however, not everyone understands it, especially for those buyers who purchase second-hand (Reagan et al. 2023), including retailers themselves (Regan et al. 2020; Boelhouwer et al. 2020). This research indicates that there are concerns that distracted driving can be caused by vehicles’ HMI of infotainment systems. Not all buyers understand the safety features of their newly bought, either new or second hard, cars which might cause distraction or result in the systems being switched off. Similarly, to the findings in this study, Reagan et al. (2023) also suggest that there is a significant role for vehicle retailers in educating buyers regarding the in-vehicle safety technological features of their vehicles. This research indicates that there is an argument for extending the regulatory framework of retailers of vehicles to fully understand the technology of the vehicles they sell and providing education to people purchasing these vehicles.

In addition, stakeholders in this research commented that when employers have fleets, vehicles are considered a workplace under work, health and safety regulations. However, some workplaces are lagging in recognising that some HMIs and mobile phone use while driving is distracting and are not discouraging their use. This coincides with findings by Swedler et al. (2015) of a survey of 277 US truck drivers and 11 interviews with supervisors and managers; and the Jonasson et al. (2017) observational study of seven Swedish district nurses. Both these studies found that organisational culture influenced drivers’ intentions to engage with HMIs and mobile phones. Participants in this research commented some employers appear slow to recognise change is necessary and take greater responsibility. In addition, mobile phone use while driving is inversely related to productivity; it saves time to answer and make calls during a journey, rather than to stop the vehicle and then use the phone. The impact of worker attitude and organisational culture on distracted driving was also explored by Nevin et al. (2017) and Wehr (2015). These two separate qualitative research studies conducted in the USA identified that even police officers self-report their own distracted driving habits (Nevin et al. 2017; Wehr 2015). To change these behaviours, a change of culture and policy frameworks is necessary (Swedler et al. 2015; Jonasson et al. 2017).

This study further notes not all commercial drivers work for organisations with fleets. Single operators, rideshare, and taxis often rely on interaction with their devices, such as mobile phones or other brought in technology, to make a living. For this group of drivers, enforcing health and safety regulations is difficult. These findings coincide with a qualitative study of interviews with 36 British taxi, food delivery drivers and parcel courier drivers and 12 managers, and an online survey with 231 respondents by Christie (2018, 2019). Drivers in Christie’s studies (2018, 2019) reported being distracted by their phones and the phone app they were required to interact with. In addition, managers felt that delivery companies were more interested in the delivery of objects, than the safety of the drivers. Many of the drivers reported to have been distracted and had near misses, or were involved in collisions (Christie 2018, 2019). Christie (2019) recommended that delivery companies should adapt their business model to improve the safety of workers, including a ban on mobile phones. Similarly, to drivers in commercial fleets, this research suggests that there could be significant scope for regulators and third parties to improve the safety of single operators. Some participants suggested to include other third parties to take on a role, such as insurance companies, for example, by increasing premiums for fleets or single operators who do not take precautions to reduce mobile phone use by their drivers; or expansion of work, health and safety regulations to focus more directly on distracted driving for all workers, including single owner-operators.

Limitations

While this research has addressed an important gap in the literature by examining stakeholders’ perceptions of the causes of distracted driving and the best approaches to modify this behaviour, there are some limitations. Firstly, this research included individuals working within 14 entities involved with road safety across two countries (Australia and the United Kingdom). Both countries are highly developed and motorised. Thus, the findings of this research may not be able to be generalised to non-western countries. And secondly, this paper only discussed buying second hard cars via second-hand car dealers. However, a large number of second-hand vehicles are sold privately, and third-party policing may not be as effective for these transactions.

Future research

As well as undertaking research in a wider range of jurisdictions and evaluating the implementation of third-party policing approaches in the distracted driving space, the ways in which these partnership arrangements operate in practice needs examination. The use of third parties provides opportunities to address distracted driving. However, prior to involving third parties and using their levers, jurisdictions must have regulatory frameworks in place that can assist with ensuring compliance or enforcement. In addition, clear understanding of the regulatory framework and how these can be applied in various contexts is necessary (Van Felius et al. 2023). More research is needed to identify third parties, their regulatory frameworks, and how these could be extended to include provisions to address distracted driving.

This paper has drawn together perceptions of policy makers who have experience working in the distracted driving space. While there may be consensus about various suggested approaches to reduce distracted driving, these have not yet been evaluated. More research is needed to fully understand the extent to which in-vehicle technology, infotainment systems and ADAS, is contributing to driver distraction.

Conclusion

Overall, this study found increasing concerns amongst road safety experts that infotainment systems and ADAS cause driver distraction and that the regulation of their design and use is not effective or current. Whilst ADASs are designed to keep the driver safe, they too can have unintended consequences in terms of driver distraction. Regulation seems to be focused on emissions and fuel efficiencies and to some extent safety, such as collision impact and seat belts. There is little regulation regarding the design and placement of the HMI for infotainment and safety of other in-vehicle technology.

These findings have direct implications for policy makers as they highlight the need for (a) creating a better understanding of the impact of emerging technologies, such as ADAS and infotainment systems on driver distraction; (b) clearer regulatory frameworks to enable police and regulatory bodies to undertake enforcement for emerging technologies that cause distracted driving; and(c) the need for police to partner with a range of stakeholders to ensure more effective enforcement occurs. These partnerships with organisations such as regulatory bodies for car manufacturers, car retailers, work, health and safety for commercial drivers, fleet managers and sole operators, and other related entities could help facilitate reduced levels of distracted driving. Through these partnerships safety could be improved through creating a better understanding of the causes of in-vehicle distraction, regulation and enforcement of emerging in-vehicle technologies, as well as constructing legislating obligations for car retailers to educate drivers on in-vehicle distractions, and on employers and contractors to ban the use of engaging with technological devices whilst driving.