Look what I can do while I’m driving: implications for road safety in Australia

Suzanne P McEvoy
Med J Aust 2007; 187 (8): . || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01350.x
Published online: 15 October 2007

New technologies are often widely available to drivers before their safety can be evaluated

In recent years, the availability of technological devices that can potentially be used while driving has expanded rapidly. One device that has received particular attention due to concern about driver distraction is the mobile phone. In this issue of the Journal, Taylor et al report on the use of handheld mobile phones by drivers in metropolitan Melbourne (→ Handheld mobile telephone use among Melbourne drivers).1 This observational study, which follows up research conducted by the same investigators in 2002, indicates that drivers continued to use handheld phones 4 years later, despite legislative and enforcement practices that prohibit their use and evidence that such use increases the risk of having a crash. On the other hand, the rate of use has remained steady even though mobile phone ownership has increased.

  • The George Institute for International Health, Sydney, NSW.



Suzanne McEvoy has received support from a Royal Australasian College of Physicians — Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation Medicine (RACP–CONROD) Fellowship.

  • 1. Taylor D McD, MacBean CE, Das A, Mohd Rosli R. Handheld mobile telephone use among Melbourne drivers. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 432-434. <MJA full text>
  • 2. McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, Woodward M. The impact of driver distraction on road safety: results from a representative survey in two Australian states. Inj Prev 2006; 12: 242-247.
  • 3. Harbluk JL, Noy YI, Trbovich PL, Eizenman M. An on-road assessment of cognitive distraction: impacts on drivers’ visual behavior and braking performance. Accid Anal Prev 2007; 39: 372-379. Epub 2006; 19 Oct.
  • 4. Horberry T, Anderson J, Regan MA, et al. Driver distraction: the effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driving performance. Accid Anal Prev 2006; 38: 185-191. Epub 2005; 12 Oct.
  • 5. Lee JD, Caven B, Haake S, Brown TL. Speech-based interaction with in-vehicle computers: the effect of speech-based e-mail on drivers’ attention to the roadway. Hum Factors 2001; 43: 631-640.
  • 6. Biding T, Lind G. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA). Results of large-scale trials in Borlänge, Lidköping, Lund and Umeå during the period 1999–2002. Stockholm: The Swedish National Road Administration, 2002: 89E.
  • 7. Regan M, Young K, Triggs T, Tomasevic N, et al. Impact on driving performance of intelligent speed adaptation, following distance warning and seatbelt reminder systems: key findings from the TAC SafeCar project. IEE Proc Intell Transport Syst 2006; 53: 51-62.
  • 8. Dingus TA, Klauer SG, Neale VL, et al. The 100-car naturalistic driving study. Phase II — results of the 100-car field experiment. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Apr 2006. (Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 593.)
  • 9. McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, Woodward M. The prevalence of, and factors associated with, serious crashes involving a distracting activity. Accid Anal Prev 2007; 39: 475-482. Epub 2006; 9 Oct.
  • 10. Transport Accident Commission. Driver distractions. (accessed Jun 2007).


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.