The study applied the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to explore motorcycle riders' underlying behavioural, normative, and control beliefs towards Advanced Rider Assistance Systems (ARAS). Each belief was explored in terms of three categories of technologies, (i) advanced technologies that help riders manage riding according to situations and conditions, (ii) advanced technologies that help riders to stop, and (iii) advanced technologies that help riders to corner. Eight focus groups were conducted with 39 motorcycle riders (Mage = 44.54 years, 27 males) who resided in Australia. First, participants completed a short online questionnaire which asked demographic information (e.g., age, gender, riding experience), before taking part in a 50-minute semi-structured online focus group. Participants' knowledge of ARAS differed depending on the type of technology, with most participants reporting good to excellent knowledge of cruise control and standard anti-lock braking system (ABS) and a poor to fair understanding of selectable riding modes and cornering ABS. For behavioural beliefs, two common advantages reported for all three categories of technologies were safety and that the technologies would benefit new riders or riders with less experience. The three common disadvantages included concerns over riders' reliance on the technologies, cost, and loss of skill or false sense of security. For normative beliefs, participants reported that their loved ones (i.e., partner, family, and friends) would approve of them using these technologies, with participants perceiving that 'purists' (i.e., riders who prefer to ride traditional motorcycles) would disapprove. For control beliefs, cost, lack of information on the safety of advanced technologies, and not being able to switch off systems were reported as barriers to use. Lowering insurance premiums, education/test rides, technologies as selectable options, and availability, were all identified as factors that would encourage use of ARAS. By providing information about ARAS, riders will become more informed about ARAS, which may enhance trust and user acceptance. Additionally, ongoing research and development are essential to ensure the evaluation and improvement of ARAS and mitigate any unintended consequences.

Although riding a bicycle is an efficient, healthy and sustainable mode of travel, in low-cycling countries there continues to be negative attitudes, harassment and aggression toward riders. Recent studies have found that part of this hostility could be due to dehumanization – the belief that cyclists are lesser humans. These beliefs are relatively common, yet we don’t yet know how we could reduce or counteract dehumanizing beliefs. In this paper we hypothesize that a ‘humanizing’ ad campaign may improve attitudes and reduce dehumanization relative to ‘non-humanizing’ campaigns. Using a survey of cyclists and non-cyclists in the Australian Capital Territory, in this study we developed four version of a static campaign poster, portraying cyclists either from in front (humanizing) or behind (non-humanizing), as a photo (humanizing) or graphic design (non-humanizing). We found that posters using photographs were more humanizing than graphic design, but design had no effect on attitudes. However, photographic posters were seen as less clear, memorable and effective than graphic posters. Showing cyclists from the front vs. the back had no significant effect on dehumanization, attitudes or effectiveness. This study suggests that if the aim of a campaign is to humanize cyclists, that photographic images may help with this effort. Given the high baseline rates of dehumanizing beliefs among the population, it would be counter-productive if safety campaigns failed to humanize this group.

ObjectivesHead injuries resulting from e-scooter use have led to calls for helmet use to be promoted or mandatory. Helmet use is mandatory for e-scooters in Australia but observational studies have reported significant levels of nonuse, particularly by riders of shared e-scooters. The aim of this study is to understand whether nonuse in the mandatory context is a consistent behavior for an individual or is situationally-influenced, and what are the factors associated with nonuse.MethodsAn online survey was completed between 2022 and 2023 by 360 adult e-scooter riders in Canberra, Australia. Riders were asked whether they had worn a helmet on their last ride and how often they had not worn a helmet when riding in the last 30 days. The survey also asked about rider characteristics (demographics, frequency of e-scooter and bicycle use, perceived risk of e-scooter use, e-scooter ownership, and risky behaviors while riding), trip duration and perceptions of the helmet requirement (knowledge of and support for the law).ResultsRespondents were mostly male, young, highly educated, and full-time workers. Of the 29.1% of riders who reported riding without a helmet in the last 30 days, 24.4% had worn a helmet at least once during that period and 4.8% had consistently not worn a helmet. Younger age, shared e-scooter use and more frequent riding frequency (shared e-scooters only) were associated with helmet nonuse in the bivariate analyses but not in the logistic regression. Logistic regression showed that the independent predictors of helmet nonuse were the number of risky riding behaviors, lack of knowledge, and lack of support for the law.ConclusionsMost nonuse of helmets in a mandatory context seems to be situational, rather than consistent. Many of the factors associated with nonuse of helmets for e-scooters are similar to those reported for bicycles. Nonuse of helmets appears to be one of a number of risky behaviors performed by riders, rather than being primarily an outcome that is specific to factors associated with helmets (e.g., concerns about hygiene, discomfort or availability).

Shared electric scooter (e-scooter) schemes debuted in US cities in 2017 and have spread to many cities worldwide. Rider inexperience and the inexperience of other road users in interacting with e-scooters may be contributing to injuries. Shared e-scooters came to Brisbane, Australia, in November 2018 and our observational study in February 2019 found a high level of non-compliance with regulations by riders of shared, but not private, e-scooters. This paper examines whether e-scooter safety improved over time by comparing the numbers and behaviors of shared and private e-scooter riders with a follow-up observational study conducted in October 2019. Riders of e-scooters (and bicycles) were counted at six sites in inner-city Brisbane by trained observers over four weekdays. Type of e-scooter (private, Lime, Neuron), helmet use, gender, age group, riding location, time of day and presence of passengers were recorded. The number of shared e-scooters observed dropped from 711 in February to 495 in October but the number of private e-scooters increased from 90 to 269, resulting in a slight reduction in the total number of e-scooters. The correct helmet wearing rate increased non-significantly from 61.4% to 66.8% for shared e-scooters and remained high for riders of private e-scooters (95.5% in February and 94.3% in October). The percentage of e-scooters ridden on the road (which is illegal in central Brisbane) remained roughly the same (shared: 6.6% in February, 4.2% in October; private: 4.5% in February, 4.9% in October). The percentage of children and adolescents (illegally) riding shared e-scooters fell from 10.3% to 6.7%. The prevalence of any of these illegal behaviors among shared e-scooter riders fell significantly for shared e-scooter riders from 49.6% to 39.1% while the prevalence of illegal behaviors by other riders remained lower and did not change. The reduction in illegal behavior among shared e-scooter riders accompanied by the tripling of usage of private e-scooters suggests that e-scooter safety is likely to have improved.

Electric scooter (e-scooter) use has increased internationally, with concerns about injuries to riders and pedestrians, and reports of non-use of helmets, excessive speed, drink-riding and underage riding. E-scooter regulations vary widely among jurisdictions, with likely effects on the extent and nature of safety issues. This study was conducted in downtown Brisbane, Australia, where e-scooters must be ridden on the footpath, bicycles are allowed on the road and the footpath, and helmet use is mandatory for bicycle and e-scooter riders of all ages. It examined involvement in illegal and risky behaviours, and interactions with pedestrians. Shared and private e-scooters, and shared and private bicycles were compared to assess the relative influences of type of vehicle and shared use. Observations at six sites in downtown Brisbane in February 2019 recorded 711 shared e-scooters, 90 private e-scooters, 274 shared bicycles and 2788 private bicycles. Illegal riding (not wearing a helmet, riding on the road, or carrying a passenger) was more prevalent among shared than private e-scooters (49.6 % vs. 12.2 %). Non-use of helmets was more common among riders of shared e-scooters (38.6 %, OR = 20.995, p < .001) and shared bicycles (18.8 %, OR = 10.994, p < .001) than private bicycles (1.5 %); occurred more often on the footpath than the road (20.1 % vs. 1.8 %, OR = 3.004, p < .001); and occurred more between 2 and 4 pm than between 7 and 9a.m. (21.3 % vs. 5.5 %, OR = 1.711, p < .01). More than 90 % of e-scooters, about half of shared bicycles and about a quarter of private bicycles were ridden on the footpath, with about 40 % within 1 m of at least one pedestrian. When there were pedestrians within 1 m, conflict rates ranged from zero to 1.5 % and no collisions were observed. At least for helmet non-use, the results suggest that risky behaviours are more prevalent among users of shared schemes, and that this difference is accentuated for e-scooters. Interactions with pedestrians are common but conflicts rarely occur in footpath riding. Further observational and survey studies are recommended to better understand the factors influencing the perceptions and behaviours of shared and private e-scooters and pedestrians. The knowledge gained from these studies needs to be integrated with injury outcome data to determine the appropriateness of rules for maximum speeds and locations of riding in terms of both rider and pedestrian safety.

There are worrying reports of escalating numbers of emergency department presentations by riders and pedestrians with injuries caused by electric scooters (e-scooters).1-3 In Brisbane, injuries involving shared e-scooters were monitored for about 2 months in early 2019; of the 109 patients for whom data were available, 12 had minor head injuries, three major head injuries, 23 upper limb fractures, and seven lower limb fractures. Not wearing helmets, travelling at more than 30 km/h, and alcohol consumption were identified as significant factors in e-scooter accidents.3 Dockless e-scooter sharing schemes emerged in the United States in 2017, and by January 2019 at least 11 e-scooter companies were operating in more than 100 cities and 26 states across the US.4 One of the largest companies, Lime, received a permit to operate in the Brisbane City Council area from November 2018 until mid-2019. The permit allows riding on roads only to cross them or to avoid obstructions on footpaths. Queensland road rules for rideables (including e-scooters) regulate their maximum dimensions, speed (maximum 25 km/h), and weight.5 Riders must be at least 12 years old (and supervised by an adult if under 16) and wear a bicycle helmet, and riding on higher speed and wider roads is forbidden. More than 500 000 e-scooter trips were undertaken during the first three months of the trial.6 Between Monday 18 and Thursday 21 February 2019, we observed 785 e-scooters (including 698 commercial shared e-scooters, 90%), as well as 2960 bicycles (269 shared, 9%) at six locations in central Brisbane during the periods 7–11 am and 4–6 pm. Most riders (618, 89%) were adults and 528 (76%) were boys or men; the proportion of riders under 18 years of age was greater than for share bicycles (11% v 2%). Almost half the shared e-scooters (312, 45%) were ridden illegally (rider not wearing a helmet, riding on the road, or doubling a passenger), as were ten private e-scooters (9%); correct helmet use was less common than for share bicycle riders (81%). Not wearing a properly fastened helmet (no helmet or helmet not properly fastened) was the most frequent risky behaviour, and was again more common among shared than private e-scooter riders (275 shared e-scooter riders [39%], four private e-scooter riders [5%]) (Box). It is unclear whether the current rules for of e-scooters are appropriate for reducing the safety risks for riders and pedestrians. For pedestrian safety, 10 km/h advisory speed signs are sometimes installed on bicycle paths shared with pedestrians, and this could also be a safe maximum footpath speed for e-scooters. Whereas the Queensland rules restrict e-scooters to footpaths (except in specific circumstances), footpath riding is banned in Portland (Oregon)2 and in California.4 The Queensland 25 km/h speed limit would be more appropriate were e-scooters ridden on roads rather than on footpaths; however, riders in Portland do not comply with the requirement to ride on the road if they think it unsafe.2 While helmets were provided with most Lime e-scooters when the scheme commenced, it was reported in the press that many had no helmets in January and February 2019.7 The low helmet-wearing rate among shared e-scooter riders indicates the need to ensure that helmets remain available and that police enforce helmet rules. Further, whether bicycle helmet standards are adequate for e-scooters should be examined. No relevant disclosures.

This study examines beliefs about helmet use in adult cyclists from 17 countries participating in the COST Action TU1101 Project (Helmet Optimization in Europe - HOPE). A total of 5797 respondents were included in the analysis after applying eligibility criteria and data cleaning. Cyclists' beliefs were assessed by 25 items using a 7-point Likert scale. These items were factor analyzed resulting in a four-factor solution (Factor 1: Perceived Benefits and Risk Reduction, Factor 2: Perceived Disadvantages and Barriers to Helmet Use, Factor 3: Perception of Group Norms, and Factor 4: Situation-Dependence of Helmet Use). Results show that both beliefs and helmet wearing behavior differ according to some demographic and cycling-related factors, such as gender, frequency of bicycle use and type of bicycle used. Factor 3 (Perception of Group Norms) and Factor 2 (Perceived Disadvantages and Barriers to Helmet Use) were among the strongest predictors of helmet use, even after controlling for demographic and cycling-related variables. The findings suggest that helmet use promotion should focus primarily on normative beliefs and on the reduction of perceived barriers. Beliefs about helmet use can vary in accordance with the cyclist's profile, as well as cultural and contextual factors. Assessment of beliefs in specific settings and populations will provide a better basis for planning interventions. The limitations of the present study are mainly related to the instrument used (online survey) and to the differences in sample sizes across countries. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Many jurisdictions around the world have implemented laws to require a minimum distance when motor vehicles pass cyclists, but research into the factors influencing passing distances has produced inconsistent results, indicating the need for future research. This study examined the factors influencing motorists' compliance with a legislated bicycle passing distance rule in Queensland, Australia. Unlike the earlier studies, which used volunteer riders to record passing events, this study used a naturalistic study design to record passing events where none of the motorists or the cyclists were aware of being studied. As a result, this study captured the 'true' driving and riding behaviours during passing events. The likelihood of non-compliance was greater on higher (70-80 km/h speed limits) and lower (40 km/h) speed roads than 60 km/h roads, at curved road sections, and on roads with narrower traffic lanes. Rider characteristics (age, gender, helmet status, type of clothing, type of bicycle, and individual or group riding) had no statistically significant association with compliance status. The findings indicate that efforts to improve cyclist safety during overtaking events should focus on non-rider related factors, such as roadway infrastructure characteristics.

INTRODUCTION:Drivers' passing cyclists closely can contribute to crashes, falls, and intimidation, which may discourage cycling. In response, minimum passing distance (MPD) rules have been introduced in many jurisdictions. This study examined the factors associated with non-compliance with a MPD rule. METHOD:An online survey of 3,769 drivers in Queensland, Australia was administered 1 year after a MPD rule began. It assessed compliance with and attitudes toward the rule. Linear regression modeling was used to examine which attitudinal and demographic factors were associated with non-compliance. RESULTS:The percentage of drivers who reported that they did not comply with the road rule "most of the time" or "almost always" was 35.5% in speed zones of ≤60 km/h and 31.8% in speed zones of >60 km/h. Associated with a greater likelihood of being non-compliant were: only infrequently observing motorists giving bicycle riders more distance when overtaking; greater awareness of bicycle riders when driving on the road; disagreeing that the rule had changed the person's driving; agreeing that the rule was making overtaking bicycle riders difficult; disagreeing that the rule had made it safer for bicycle riders; agreeing that it was difficult to judge 1 or 1.5 m when overtaking a bicycle rider; and agreeing that giving 1.5 m clearance in >60 km/h zones to bicycle riders was annoying (p < .05). In high speed zones, drivers aged 18-39 years were more likely than those aged 50+ years to be non-compliant (p < .05). Compliance was not associated with driver sex, amount of driving, or perceived level of enforcement. CONCLUSIONS:Reported non-compliance with the MPD rule is widespread and is related more to attitudinal than demographic factors. Practical applications: Strategies for helping drivers to judge passing distance and improve their understanding of the importance for cyclist safety of leaving an adequate distance are needed.

Police crash reports are often the main source for official data in many countries. However, with the exception of fatal crashes, crashes are often underreported in a biased manner. Consequently, the countermeasures adopted according to them may be inefficient. In the case of bicycle crashes, this bias is most acute and it probably varies across countries, with some of them being more prone to reporting accidents to police than others. Assessing if this bias occurs and the size of it can be of great importance for evaluating the risks associated with bicycling. This study utilized data collected in the COST TU1101 action "Towards safer bicycling through optimization of bicycle helmets and usage". The data came from an online survey that included questions related to bicyclists' attitudes, behaviour, cycling habits, accidents, and patterns of use of helmets. The survey was filled by 8655 bicyclists from 30 different countries. After applying various exclusion factors, 7015 questionnaires filled by adult cyclists from 17 countries, each with at least 100 valid responses, remained in our sample. The results showed that across all countries, an average of only 10% of all crashes were reported to the police, with a wide range among countries: from a minimum of 0.0% (Israel) and 2.6% (Croatia) to a maximum of a 35.0% (Germany). Some factors associated with the reporting levels were type of crash, type of vehicle involved, and injury severity. No relation was found between the likelihood of reporting and the cyclist's gender, age, educational level, marital status, being a parent, use of helmet, and type of bicycle. The significant under-reporting - including injury crashes that do not lead to hospitalization - justifies the use of self-report survey data for assessment of bicycling crash patterns as they relate to (1) crash risk issues such as location, infrastructure, cyclists' characteristics, and use of helmet and (2) strategic approaches to bicycle crash prevention and injury reduction.

Cycling has demonstrated health benefits, but the fear of collisions with motor vehicles discourages many people from riding on the road, particularly women. Previous studies have reported mixed results about the factors influencing the distances left by drivers when passing cyclists. The present research aimed to control for other rider, roadway and traffic factors to understand whether cyclist gender influences passing distances. Video recordings of 1113 passing events (865 males, 248 females) occurring in Southeast Queensland, Australia after the introduction of a minimum passing distance road rule were analysed. Events were at sites with narrow or wide lanes and 40 or 60 km/h speed zones. Linear mixed modelling was used to examine the association between gender of the cyclist and the passing distance, after adjusting for rider characteristics (clothing type, riding single file or two or more abreast), the type of overtaking vehicle, the time of the observation (time of day, weekday or weekend), and the site characteristics (speed zone and lane width). In the modelling, observations were nested within the date of observation. No significant relationships between gender and passing distance or interactions between gender and the other factors were found. Passing distance appears to be influenced by cyclists' clothing, vehicle type, traffic volumes, and speed limits. Greater passing distance was given to cyclists who wore street clothes (versus lycra). Motorcycle or scooter riders gave more passing distance than did drivers of small passenger vehicles. Passing distance was also greater when overtaking occurred during morning peak (versus evening peak), and in 60 km/h speed zones (versus 40 km/h speed zones). The results do not support the findings of previous studies that drivers give more space when overtaking female cyclists.

Background: As road complexity increases the requirement for number of road signs also increases, although the amount of road side space does not. One practical strategy to address this is to present multiple road signs on the same gantry (sign co-location). However, there is very little research on the safety implications of this practice.Method: 36 participants (mean age = 42.25 years, SD = 13.99, 18 females) completed three driving simulator scenarios, each scenario had a different sign co-location condition: no co-location, dual co-location and triple co-location. Each scenario presented similar information using direction signs, variable message signs and variable speed limit signs, under. Each drive included standard motorway driving (100 lanth speed zone) in free flow traffic and one emergency event where a lead vehicle suddenly braked. The scenario order was counterbalanced and the emergency event vehicle varied.Results: Overall, there was no impact of co-locating signs on general driving performance. No significant difference was observed between conditions for reaction time and minimum headway in response to the emergency event. Participants were able to correctly choose their destination whether the signs were co-located or not.Discussion: For the particular configuration of signs tested there is no evidence that co-location negatively impacts driving performance. However, there may be some implications for travel speed and the manner in which the emergency event is responded to. Future work should confirm the findings on real roads. These findings provided support for sign co-location as a practical and safe option for displaying multiple road signs in a confined area. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Issues addressed - Motorists’ harassment of cyclists is a barrier to cycling. Whether the introduction of a road rule can decrease harassment is unknown. This study examined changes in cyclists’ reporting of harassment pre- to post-introduction of the Queensland trial of the Minimum Passing Distance Road Rule amendment. Methods - Cross-sectional online surveys of cyclists in Queensland, Australia were conducted in 2009 (pre-trial; n=1758) and 2015 (post-trial commencement; n=1997). Cyclists were asked about their experiences of harassment from motorists while cycling. Logistic regression modelling was used to examine differences in the reporting of harassment between these time periods, after adjustments for demographic characteristics and cycling behaviour. Results - At both time periods, the most reported types of harassment were deliberately driving too close (causing fear/anxiety), shouting abuse, and making obscene gestures/sexual harassment. The percentage of cyclists who reported tailgating by motorists increased between 2009 and 2015 (15.1% to 19.5%; p<0.001). The percentage of cyclists reporting other types of harassment did not change significantly. Conclusions - Cyclists in Queensland continue to experience harassment while cycling on the road. The amendment to the minimum passing distance rule in Queensland appears to be having a negative effect on one type of harassment but no significant effects on others. So what? - Minimum passing distances rules may not be improving cyclists’ perceptions of motorists. Additional strategies are required to create a supportive environment for cycling.

Issues addressed Cyclists' perceptions of harassment from motorists discourages cycling. This study examined changes in cyclists' reporting of harassment pre- to post-introduction of the Queensland trial of the minimum passing distance road rule amendment (MPD-RRA). Methods Cross-sectional online surveys of cyclists in Queensland, Australia were conducted in 2009 (pre-trial; n=1758) and 2015 (post-trial commencement; n=1997). Cyclists were asked about their experiences of harassment from motorists while cycling. Logistic regression modelling was used to examine differences in the reporting of harassment between these time periods, after adjustments for demographic characteristics and cycling behaviour. Results At both time periods, the most reported types of harassment were deliberately driving too close (causing fear or anxiety), shouting abuse and making obscene gestures or engaging in sexual harassment. The percentage of cyclists who reported tailgating by motorists increased between 2009 and 2015 (15.1% to 19.5%; P<0.001). The percentage of cyclists reporting other types of harassment did not change significantly. Conclusions Cyclists in Queensland continue to perceive harassment while cycling on the road. The amendment to the minimum passing distance rule in Queensland appears to be having a negative effect on one type of harassment but no significant effects on others. So what? Minimum passing distance rules may not be improving cyclists' perceptions of motorists' behaviours. Additional strategies are required to create a supportive environment for cycling.

Mandatory bicycle helmet laws have been found to increase helmet wearing rates in Australia and internationally. However, much of the research on factors influencing compliance with the Australian helmet laws is dated or focuses on commuters and city areas only. To address this gap, video recordings of bicycle riders were undertaken at 17 sites across Queensland, Australia, representing a mixture of on- and off-road locations, speed limits and regions. Helmet status was able to be determined for 98% of riders observed. The level of compliance with the laws was very high, with 98.3% of the more than 27,000 riders observed wearing helmets. Riders riding on roads were less compliant than those riding on bicycle paths, but no significant differences were observed between the school-holiday and school-term periods. Among the on-road riders, boys were less compliant than girls and overall children were less compliant than adults. Higher compliance levels were found for group riders, road bike riders, lycra-clad riders, during morning hours, and on 50 km/h or lower speed limit roads. While the overall level of compliance was very high, certain subgroups were identified as a possible focus for interventions to further improve the compliance level, for example children (particularly boys) riding mountain bikes away from groups during the afternoon hours on 60 km/h roads.

Minimum passing distance laws aim to prevent crashes occurring when motorists overtake cyclists. This study evaluated the 2-year trial in Queensland. Motorists were more aware of cyclists when driving on the road and most motorists and cyclists had observed motorists giving cyclists more space when overtaking than before the rule. Non-compliance rates were 12% at low speed and 21% at high speed sites. Delays in crash and injury data prevented assessment of road safety benefits but the initial findings suggest that the road rule may encourage motorists to provide more space to cyclists and as such, improve cyclist safety. Background Cyclists have a higher risk of serious injury and death compared with motor vehicle occupants (e.g., Bíl, Bílová, & Müller, 2010; Scholten, Polinder, Panneman, van Beeck, & Haagsma, 2015), with rear-end crashes and sideswipes being two major crash types that result in serious injury or even death of cyclists (Australian Transport Safety Bureau, 2006). Minimum passing distance (MPD) laws have been enacted in the U.S. and some European counties (e.g., France, Portugal, and Spain), to reduce crash risk and the severity of crashes between motorists and cyclists. In Australia, a 2-year trial of a MPD rule was introduced in Queensland on 7 April, 2014. The aim of the current research was to evaluate the effectiveness of the trial Queensland MPD road rule in terms of (i) practical implication, (ii) impact on road users’ behaviour, knowledge, awareness and perceptions, and (iii) road safety benefits. Method The evaluation comprised five components: (i) review of written correspondence received by TMR (ii) interviews and focus groups with Queensland Police Service Officers, (iii) online cyclist and motorist survey (Bicycle Queensland and RACQ members), (iv) observational study, and (v) analysis of crash, injury, and infringement data.

The paper presents initial findings from an Austroads funded project NT1782 Ability to Absorb Information through Electronic and Static Signs. The paper aims to investigate how easily messages displayed on co-located signs can be absorbed, and if drivers can absorb messages and take appropriate action without any adverse impact on the safety and efficiency of driving. Co-location of three types of signs under motorway conditions was investigated: direction signs (DS), variable message signs (VMS) and variable speed limits/lane control signs (VSL/LCS). The authors reviewed global wide practices and research evidence on different types of sign co-locations. It was found that dual co-location of VSL/LCS, VMS and/or DS is a practical arrangement which has been widely practised overseas and in Australia. Triple co-location of VSL/LCS, VMS and DS is also practised overseas but is still new to the Australian driving community. The NT1782 project also employed an advanced driving simulator (ADS) to further investigate the possible impacts of sign co-location on drivers’ responses in an emergency situation and there were no obviously adverse impacts have been identified from the ADS study. The authors consolidated all findings and concluded that although there is no clear evidence showing that triple co-location gives rise to riskier behaviour, this proposition should be viewed with caution. Further evaluation of triple co-location in a real-life setting is called for.

The two-year trial of the Queensland minimum passing distance (MPD) road rule began on 7 April 2014. The rule requires motor vehicles to provide cyclists a minimum lateral passing distance of one metre when overtaking cyclists in a speed zone of 60 km/h or less, and 1.5 metres when the speed limit is greater than 60 km/h. This document summarises the evaluation of the effectiveness of the new rule in terms of its: 1. practical implementation; 2. impact on road users’ attitudes and perceptions; and 3. road safety benefits. The Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q) developed the evaluation framework (Haworth, Schramm, Kiata-Holland, Vallmuur, Watson & Debnath; 2014) for the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) and was later commissioned to undertake the evaluation. The evaluation included the following components: • Review of correspondence received by TMR; • Interviews and focus groups with Queensland Police Service (QPS) officers; • Road user survey; • Observational study; and • Crash, injury and infringement data analysis.