It is generally recognized that the driver’s perception of enforcement activity is more important than the actual amount that takes place and for this reason enforcement is most effective when highly visible and well publicized. The use of enforcement by speed cameras and unmarked police cars, will make the drivers assessments about the amount of enforcement activity taking place more difficult. Therefore, these methods must be used more widely to have the same effect. This is possible with the use of automatic speed cameras, as they require less resources than ordinary police controls. It may be that a majority of drivers are in favour of more severe sanctions for drink-driving because three-quarters of those interviewed had not experienced such enforcement in the previous three years.

Approximately two-third of drivers declared that they were satisfied with existing traffic regulations (judging that the size of the punishment fitted the seriousness of the offence, that it was quickly administered and that it focussed on promoting safety, as opposed to raising revenues). Overall, 76% of drivers were in favour of greater levels of enforcement of the traffic laws, but this varied from 50 to 90% between countries. Sixty per cent were in favour of more severe penalties for speeding offences and 90% supported more severe penalties for drink-driving offences.

New technologies designed for improving traffic

During recent years, the number of systems using new technologies to improve road safety has increased dramatically. These have ranged from enforcement systems, e.g. speed cameras, to those designed to help the drivers, e.g. on-board navigation systems. Some systems can be compulsory, e.g. speed limiters on lorries, or optional in that they can be switched on or off by the driver, e.g. automatic speed cruise control.
There are marked differences throughout Europe regarding such developments. In some countries speed cameras and navigation systems are common, while in other countries, they are not used to any great extent, if at all, and such differences can have a strong influence on the drivers' attitudes to such systems.
However, it is certain that such systems will become more common in European countries so the SARTRE 3 survey, unlike SARTRE 1 and SARTRE 2, included a number of questions on existing attitudes towards such new technologies.
Three different types of system were included. These were those that:
• Helped the driver (aid systems),
• Imposed certain behaviour (alert and intervention systems),
• Could be used by the police to enforce the law (regulatory systems).