How visibility and alerts shape speed enforcement legitimacy

Speeding remains a leading contributor to road fatalities in Australia, with enforcement technologies such as speed cameras playing a central role in prevention efforts. This study investigated how perceptions of legitimacy—based on Tankebe's multidimensional model—differ between overt and covert speed cameras, and how these perceptions are influenced by the use of enforcement notification technologies (e.g., Google Maps, Waze). A cross-sectional survey of 1168 Australian drivers measured speeding behaviour, use of enforcement-avoidance technology, and perceptions of legitimacy across five constructs: lawfulness, obligation to obey, procedural fairness, distributive fairness, and camera effectiveness. Findings showed that overt cameras were perceived as significantly more fair and effective than covert ones. Technology users reported more frequent speeding, particularly at high levels, greater awareness of covert cameras and significantly lower perceptions on a number of the legitimacy variables than those that do not use the technology. Across both low- and high-level speeding models, the legitimacy constructs of lawfulness and obligation to obey the law were the strongest predictors of reduced speeding, while perceptions tied to specific enforcement methods were not significant. These results highlight the importance of fostering broad legal legitimacy. As enforcement systems increasingly intersect with digital technologies, maintaining public trust and reinforcing moral alignment with traffic laws may be key to supporting long-term compliance and reducing road risk. • Technology users have lower perceptions of legitimacy. • Technology users speed more and have more awareness of covert cameras. • Overt speed cameras perceived as more legitimate than covert cameras. • Lawfulness and obligation to obey the law predicted speeding. • Reinforcement of moral grounding of traffic laws is needed.