Configuring hidden and visible camera enforcement for risky driving deterrence

Road rule violations such as speeding and mobile phone use while driving remain major contributors to road crashes worldwide. Camera-based enforcement is widely implemented to address these behaviours, yet the relative and combined effects of overt and covert enforcement remain insufficiently understood. This investigation develops and tests a deterrence-based framework for identifying the perceived effectiveness of hidden and visible camera enforcement, focusing on key mechanisms including perceived certainty of apprehension and punishment avoidance. A cross-sectional, scenario-based survey was conducted with 1,167 licensed drivers in Australia. Participants evaluated four enforcement configurations (no enforcement, covert cameras, overt cameras, and combined covert and overt cameras). Outcomes included deterrence perceptions, willingness to engage in offending behaviours, and attitudes towards enforcement. Ordinal random forest models were used for variable selection, followed by cumulative link mixed-effects models to estimate effects while accounting for repeated measures. Covert enforcement was associated with higher perceived certainty of apprehension, whereas overt enforcement reduced punishment avoidance and willingness to offend. Punishment avoidance emerged as a central behavioural mechanism, showing stronger associations with willingness than perceived certainty. Combined enforcement aligned these mechanisms, increasing perceived certainty while reducing opportunities for undetected violations. Visible enforcement was also associated with more positive attitudes, indicating a complementary role in supporting legitimacy. The findings demonstrate that deterrence is not a property of individual enforcement mechanisms, but an emergent outcome of how enforcement is configured. Effective strategies should therefore balance uncertainty, visibility, and communication across the road network. These results extend deterrence theory by showing that key mechanisms are co-produced through enforcement configurations and provide practical guidance for designing more effective and publicly acceptable enforcement systems.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Accident Analysis & Prevention
Published
2026-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2026.108839
Primary Topic
Traffic and Road Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Configuring hidden and visible camera enforcement for risky driving deterrence

Grégoire S. Larue, Óscar Oviedo-Trespalacios, Verity Truelove
4 links
Accident Analysis & Prevention
Traffic and Road Safety
article

Configuring hidden and visible camera enforcement for risky driving deterrence

Grégoire S. Larue, Óscar Oviedo-Trespalacios, Verity Truelove
article en

Abstract

Road rule violations such as speeding and mobile phone use while driving remain major contributors to road crashes worldwide. Camera-based enforcement is widely implemented to address these behaviours, yet the relative and combined effects of overt and covert enforcement remain insufficiently understood. This investigation develops and tests a deterrence-based framework for identifying the perceived effectiveness of hidden and visible camera enforcement, focusing on key mechanisms including perceived certainty of apprehension and punishment avoidance. A cross-sectional, scenario-based survey was conducted with 1,167 licensed drivers in Australia. Participants evaluated four enforcement configurations (no enforcement, covert cameras, overt cameras, and combined covert and overt cameras). Outcomes included deterrence perceptions, willingness to engage in offending behaviours, and attitudes towards enforcement. Ordinal random forest models were used for variable selection, followed by cumulative link mixed-effects models to estimate effects while accounting for repeated measures. Covert enforcement was associated with higher perceived certainty of apprehension, whereas overt enforcement reduced punishment avoidance and willingness to offend. Punishment avoidance emerged as a central behavioural mechanism, showing stronger associations with willingness than perceived certainty. Combined enforcement aligned these mechanisms, increasing perceived certainty while reducing opportunities for undetected violations. Visible enforcement was also associated with more positive attitudes, indicating a complementary role in supporting legitimacy. The findings demonstrate that deterrence is not a property of individual enforcement mechanisms, but an emergent outcome of how enforcement is configured. Effective strategies should therefore balance uncertainty, visibility, and communication across the road network. These results extend deterrence theory by showing that key mechanisms are co-produced through enforcement configurations and provide practical guidance for designing more effective and publicly acceptable enforcement systems.

Accident Analysis & PreventionVol. 240
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KR), University of the Sunshine Coast (AU), Delft University of Technology (NL)
Motor Accident Insurance Commission
Peace, justice, and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Traffic and Road Safety
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon