As countries struggled with SARS-COV2 outbreaks at the beginning of 2021, many citizens found themselves in yet another period of increasing travel restrictions, if not a strict lockdown. At the same time there was concern that further restrictions would prove to be less effective due to a range of reasons including increasing pandemic fatigue or the lack of appropriate supports. In this study we investigate whether restrictions remained effective as a way to limit non-essential travel in order to curb virus transmission. We do this by analysing adherence during periods of increasing and decreasing restrictions in 125 countries during three different 4-month phases, early (March-June 2020), middle (July-October 2020), and late (November 2020-February 2021) over the course of the first year of the pandemic, and prior to significant population-wide vaccination. We use the strength of the relationship between restriction levels and the level of personal mobility associated with non-essential travel in order to determine the degree of adherence to the restrictions imposed. We show that there is evidence of a significant decrease in adherence to restrictions during the middle and late phases of the pandemic, compared with the early phase. Our analysis further suggests that this decrease in adherence is due to changes in mobility rather than changes in restrictions. We conclude, therefore, that restrictions have become less effective at curbing non-essential travel, which may alter the cost-benefit analysis of restrictions and lockdowns, thus highlighting the need for governments to reconsider large-scale restrictions as a containment strategy in the future, in favour of more focused or flexible mitigation approaches.