A cross sectional observational study of child restraint use in Queensland following changes in legislation

As part of an evaluation of the 2010 legislation for child vehicle occupants in Queensland, road-side observations of private passenger vehicles were used to estimate the proportions of children 0-under 7 years travelling in each of the 5 different restraint types (eg. forward facing child restraint). Data was collected in 4 major population centres: Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Mackay and Townsville. Almost all children were restrained (95.1%, 95% CI 94.3-95.9%), with only 3.3% (95% CI 2.6-4.0%) clearly unrestrained and 44 (1.6%, 95% CI 1.1-2.1%) for whom restraint status could not be determined (‘unknown’). However, around 24.0% (95 CI 21.8-26.2%) of the target-aged children were deemed inappropriately restrained, primarily comprised of 3-6 year olds in seatbelts (18.7% of the 0-6 year olds, 95% CI 16.3-21.1%) or unrestrained (3.7% of the 0-6 year olds, 95% CI 2.5-4.9%) instead of booster seats. In addition, compliance appeared significantly lower for some regional locations where the proportion of children observed as completely unrestrained was relatively high and of concer

A qualitative investigation of older pedestrian views of influences on their road crossing safety

With Australia’s population rapidly ageing, older pedestrian safety has begun to receive greater attention from road safety researchers. However, reliance on simulator studies and observational techniques has limited current understanding of why older pedestrians adopt particular crossing behaviours, and how they perceive crossing the road. The current study aimed to investigate the psychological factors that may contribute to older pedestrians’ crash risk by examining their perceptions of the issues they encounter on the road. Qualitative semi-structured interviews with 18 pedestrians aged 55 years and older were conducted, and the interview transcripts underwent thematic analysis. From this analysis, four key themes emerged. Firstly, the physical design of the road was perceived as posing a significant threat for older pedestrians, particularly sloped, semi-mountable kerbs and designated crossings. Secondly, declines in older pedestrians’ confidence in their ability to cross the road were evident through fewer reported risks being taken. Additionally, older pedestrians sensed an increased threat from other road users when crossing the road, particularly from drivers and cyclists. Finally, older pedestrians referred to the informal rules and strategies used to guide their road crossing. The results suggest that the road environment is perceived as increasingly dangerous and hazardous environment for older pedestrians. Implications regarding the physical road design in areas with an existing high proportion of elderly people are discussed

Evaluation of the Type I child car restraints fitting service in WA

Child passenger injury remains a major road safety issue despite advances in biomechanical understanding and child restraint design. In Australia, one intervention with parents to encourage universal and consistent use of the most appropriate restraint as well as draw their attention to critical aspects of installation is the RoadWise Type 1 Child Car Restraints Fitting Service, WA. A mixed methods evaluation of this service was conducted in early 2010. Evaluation results suggest that it has been effective in ensuring good quality training of child restraint fitters. In addition, stakeholder and user satisfaction with the Service is high, with participants agreeing that the Service is valuable to the community, and fitters regarding the training course, materials and post-training support as effective. However, a continuing issue for interventions of this type is whether the parents who need them perceive this need. Evidence from the evaluation suggests that only about 25% of parents who could benefit from the Service actually use it. This may be partly due to parental perceptions that such services are not necessary or relevant to them, or to overconfidence about the ease of installing restraints correctly. Thus there is scope for improving awareness of the Service amongst groups most likely to benefit from it (e.g. new parents) and for alerting parents to the importance of correct installation and getting their self-installed restraints checked. Efforts to inform and influence parents should begin when their children are very young, preferably at or prior to birth and/or before the parent installs the first restraint

Social influences on drivers in China

China is one of Asia’s many rapidly-motorising nations and recent increases in private-vehicle ownership have been coupled with an escalation in novice drivers. Several pieces of road safety legislation have been introduced in recent decades in China. While managing the legal aspects of road use is important, social influences on driver behaviour may offer alternative avenues to alter behaviour, particularly in a culture where such factors carry high importance. This paper reports qualitative research with Beijing drivers to investigate social influence factors that have, to date, received little attention in the literature. Findings indicated that family members, friends, and driving instructors appear influential on driver behaviour and that some newly licensed drivers seek additional assistance to facilitate the transition from learning to drive in a controlled environment to driving on the road in complex conditions. Strategies to avoid detection and penalties for inappropriate road use were described, many of which involved the use of a third person. These findings indicate potential barriers to implementing effective traffic enforcement and highlight the importance of understanding culturally-specific social factors relating to driver behaviour

The influence of parental health beliefs on child restraint practices in a regional centre in Queensland

Since March 2010 in Queensland, legislation has specified the type of restraint and seating row for child passengers under 7 years according to age. The following study explored regional parents’ child restraint practices and the influence of their health beliefs over these. A brief intercept interview was verbally administered to a convenience sample of parent-drivers (n = 123) in Toowoomba in February 2010, after the announcement of changes to legislation but prior to enforcement. Parents who agreed to be followed-up were then reinterviewed after the enforcement (May-June 2010). The Health Beliefs Model was used to gauge beliefs about susceptibility to crashing, children being injured in a crash, and likely severity of injuries. Self-efficacy and perceptions about barriers to, and benefits of, using age-appropriate restraints with children, were also assessed. Results: There were very high levels of rear seating reported for children (initial interview 91%; follow-up 100%). Dedicated child restraint use was 96.9% at initial interview, though 11% were deemed inappropriate for the child’s age. Self-reported restraint practices for children under 7 were used to categorise parental practices into ‘Appropriate’ (all children in age-appropriate restraint and rear seat) or ‘Inappropriate’ (≥1 child inappropriately restrained). 94% of parents were aware of the legislation, but only around one third gave accurate descriptions of the requirements. However, 89% of parents were deemed to have ‘Appropriate’ restraint practices. Parents with ‘Inappropriate’ practices were significantly more likely than those with ‘Appropriate’ practices to disagree that child restraints provide better protection for children in a crash than adult seatbelts. For self-efficacy, parents with ‘Appropriate’ practices were more likely than those with ‘Inappropriate’ practices to report being ‘completely confident’ about installing child restraints. The results suggest that efforts to increase the level of appropriate restraint should attempt to better inform them about the superior protection offered by child restraints compared with seat belts for children

Announcement and legislation enactment improve children's seating position in regional areas

New legislation requires all children 7 years and younger to use child-specific Australian Standards approved restraints suitable to their age and restricts seating young children in the front of cars. Observations of child seating position and restraint use were undertaken in Toowoomba and Rockhampton before the Queensland legislation was announced (T1), after the announcement but before it was enacted (T2) and after it came into force (T3). From T1 to T2, the percentage of children seated in the rear increased (69% to 75%), with a further increase from T2 to T3 (75% to 77%). This pattern was clear when there were one or two children in the car, but not when there were 3 or more. The effect on restraint use was more complex. After the announcement (T2) the percentage of children using adult seatbelts significantly increased regardless of the number of child passengers. However, once the legislation was enacted (T3) there was a significant increase in the percentage of children using child seats/boosters where there was one or two child passengers. Where there were three or more children in the vehicle there was little change in restraint choice between pre (T1) and post (T3) legislation

Should we be aiming to engage drivers more with others on-road? Driving moral disengagement and self-reported driving aggression

Aggressive driving behaviours may be associated with greater crash risk in situations where drivers engage in riskier types of behaviours such as following too closely. It also appears that many drivers who do not normally regard themselves as angry or aggressive report engaging in aggressive driving acts. Qualitative studies have suggested that drivers explain these behaviours with reference to justified retaliation or beliefs that such acts ‘teach’ other drivers a ‘lesson’ or to exercise better driving manners or etiquette. Drivers may also argue that their behaviour does not have a negative impact on others. Such descriptions of motives bear a strong resemblance to the psychological mechanisms of moral disengagement. Moral disengagement is where individuals detach themselves from their usual self-regulatory processes or morality in order to behave in ways that run counter to their normal moral standards. Moral disengagement offers a potential explanation of how apparently ‘good’ or moral people commit ‘bad’ or immoral behaviours. Categories of moral disengagement are: cognitively misinterpreting the behaviour (e.g euphemistic labelling); disconnecting with the target (e.g. attributing blame to the target); and distorting or denying the impact of the behaviour. An on-line survey with a convenience sample of general drivers (N = 294) was used to explore the potential utility of moral disengagement in explaining self-reported driving aggression over and above the explanatory power provided by constructs that are normally associated with self-reported on-road aggression. Hierarchical regression analysis was used with measures of trait anger, driving anger (DAS), moral disengagement, and driving moral disengagement (an adaptation of the measure of moral disengagement for the driving context). Results revealed that the independent variables together explained 37% of the variation in self-reported driving aggression (as measured by the Driving Anger Expression scale, DAX). Driving moral disengagement was a significant predictor of driving aggression (p < .001) after accounting for the contribution of age, gender, driving anger, and moral disengagement. Moreover, inspection of the beta weights suggested that driving moral disengagement (beta = .57) was the strongest predictor for this sample, accounting for 20% of the unique variance in driving aggression (sr2 = .20). The pattern of results suggests drivers with higher tendencies to morally disengage in the driving context may respond to others more aggressively on-road. Moreover, driving moral disengagement appeared to add to our understanding of why some angry drivers do not respond aggressively on-road while others do. Seeking to prevent drivers from activating moral disengagement while driving may be worthy of exploration as a way of reducing non-violent, yet potentially still risky, forms of driving aggression

After the Left–Right (Dis)continuum: Globalization and the Remaking of Europe’s Ideological Geography

This article examines the status of globalization as a causal factor in political mobilization and proposes a research agenda for diagnosing the impact of global socio-economic dynamics on ideological orientation in national polities. Focusing on Europe’s established democracies, the article outlines recent shifts in Europe’s ideological landscape and explores the mechanisms generating a new pattern of political conflict and electoral competition. It advances the hypothesis that the knowledge economy of open borders has brought about a political cleavage inti- mately linked to citizens’ perceptions of the social impact of global eco- nomic integration. In this context, the polarization of life chances is determined by institutionally mediated exposure to both the economic opportunities and the hazards of globalization. Fostered by the increas- ing relevance of the international for state-bound publics, new fault-lines of social conflict are emerging, giving shape to a new, ‘‘opportunity- risk,’’ axis of political competition. As the novel political cleavage challenges the conventional left–right divide, it is likely to radically alter Europe’s ideological geography

Parental Perceptions of Legitimate Reasons to Relax their Seating Rules for Children in Cars

One simple, cost-effective action to improve children’s safety in cars is to restrain them in the rear seat whenever this is possible, as this has been shown to be about 35% safer than sitting in the front in the event of a crash. Moreover, seating position and restraint use have an interactive effect on safety: wearing a restraint and sitting in the rear provides the best protection of all. Despite this fact it appears that a high proportion of children are still travelling in the front seats of cars in Australia. Changing this behaviour presents a challenge as we have little information about the factors that influence parental decisions regarding seating position for children. Focus group discussions were held with parent-drivers (n = 33) of children (12 years and younger) in urban areas of Brisbane to explore these factors. Findings were that parents usually had firm rules that children should always sit in the back. However, there were occasions when parents relaxed these rules for what they saw as legitimate reasons. Amongst these were: perceptions of the trip as short, giving children a "treat", and management of behaviours such as sibling fights and tantrums

Influences on where Australian Parents Allow their Children to Sit in Cars

There is growing evidence that children's protection as car passengers can be improved through both appropriate restraint use and through insisting that they travel in the rear seat rather than the front. However many children still travel in the front seats of cars in Australia and New Zealand. Encouraging parents to keep children in the rear seat requires an understanding of why they allow their children to sit in the front seat. As part of a larger study, an intercept interview was conducted with parent-drivers (n = 470) of children (≤12 years). Questions focussed on parents' concerns about children’s safety in cars, family rules about seating position, and the influences on their decisions in relation to where they allow their children to sit. This paper reports preliminary findings from those parents with children aged 4 years or older (n=265). While most parents were concerned about where their children sat, and had a rule that children should travel in the rear seat, over 60% had allowed children to sit in the front seat at some time. The strongest influence on their decisions, affecting 23% of these parents, was lack of space for all children in the rear seat. Around one fifth reported that having older children who were allowed to sit in the front seat or children who fought a lot were also influential on their seating position decisions. These findings suggest that interventions to encourage the practice of children travelling in the rear seat can be addressed through engineering and behavioural avenues. By drawing the attention of manufacturers of child restraints and vehicles to parents’ experiences of using such products it may be possible to encourage design changes that facilitate children remaining in the rear seat to older ages. In terms of behaviour, interventions with parents would do well to capitalise on the existing rules parents use to prevent children from sitting in the front seat as well as providing parents with strategies to address child management issues