Table 3 |
|||||
|
Impact of legislation on non-compliance reported by included studies on mobile phone usage in vehicles |
|||||
|
Data for non-compliance |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Study |
Location |
Pre legislation % (sampling interval before legislation) |
Post legislation % - Time 1 (sampling interval after legislation) |
Post legislation % - Time 2 (sampling interval after legislation) |
Method used to obtain data |
|
|
|||||
|
UK, Birmingham |
1.85 (10 weeks) |
0.97 (10 weeks) |
1.63 (24 months) |
Direct observation of usage |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Walker et al[61]. |
UK, London |
2.3 (4 weeks) |
2.6 (4 weeks) |
- |
Direct observation of usage |
|
|
|||||
|
Broughton[62] |
UK, London |
- |
- |
2.6 (36 months) |
Direct observation of usage |
|
|
|||||
|
Constant et al[63]. |
France, nationwide |
4.2 (24 months) |
2.2 (24 months) |
- |
Self report of usage |
|
|
|||||
|
Foss et al[64]. |
US, North Carolina |
11.0 (4 to 8 weeks) |
11.8 (20 weeks) |
- |
Direct observation of usage |
|
|
|||||
|
US, New York City |
2.3 (24 weeks) |
1.1 (16 weeks) |
2.1 (12 months) |
Direct observation of usage |
|
|
|
|||||
|
US, Washington DC |
6.1 (12 weeks) |
3.5 (12 weeks) |
4.0 (12 months) |
Direct observation of usage |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Rajalin et al[66]. |
Finland, nationwide |
55.8 (no data) |
15.2 (no data) |
20.0 (no data) |
Self report of usage |
|
|
|||||
|
Key: * data on under 18 year olds only |
|||||
|
Wong et al. BMC Public Health 2011 11:222 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-222 |
|||||
