Time to seize cellphones used by drivers – expert

The police should have the power to temporarily seize cellphones being used by drivers while a car is in motion, says a leading road safety expert.

Clive Matthew-Wilson, editor of the car buyer’s Dog & Lemon Guide, says that simply banning cellphones won’t work because many users are prepared to risk a fine rather than miss a call. However, says Matthew-Wilson, most cellphone users would hate to lose their cellphone and this fear would eventually modify their behaviour.

“Cellphone use by drivers is banned in about fifty countries, yet drivers continue to use their cellphones regardless. Clearly, we need to move beyond simply giving drivers tickets to taking their cellphones away.”

“What cars and cellphones have in common is that they give us freedom. Take away that freedom and you give drivers a powerful incentive to modify their behaviour.”

Matthew-Wilson’s submission to the previous minister for transport safety is reproduced below:

The government has proposed a ban on the use of handheld cellphones by

drivers of moving vehicles. I support this measure, with the following

caveats:

1) Experience overseas shows that cellphone bans in which the offender

is fined have a limited effect in terms of modifying driver behavior.

2) Under the government's proposed legislation, fines and demerit

points would be issued. I oppose this strategy for two reasons:

a) When a fine is issued, the cause and the effect of the punishment

occur weeks or months apart. This often has little effect on the

behaviour of the people most likely to use cellphones for texting: that

is, young adults.

b) Experience has shown that fines by young offenders often go unpaid,

Not all people who have unpaid fines are poor, but many of them are

young and disorganised. They may intend to pay the fine, but their

lives are chaotic and the situation gets quickly out of hand. These

fines then multiply exponentially, so that the final amount owed is

out of all proportion to the original offence.

Notwithstanding this, there is little evidence that fines actually

affect the behaviour of young adults (several studies have shown this).

c) Issuing demerit points is unlikely to have a profound effect on

driver behaviour, for the reasons stated above. Also, studies in

England have shown that when a young person's driver's license is

revoked, many of them simply keep driving anyway.

3) For the reasons above, I propose a different strategy: police would

simply temporarily confiscate cellphones used by the drivers of moving

vehicles. This would be quite a simple process.

Every police car would carry a pre-printed receipt book and a few pre-

paid padded postal envelopes. The officer would simply instruct the

offending driver to write his or her address onto the envelope. The

officer would then place the cellphone into the envelope and seal it.

He would then drop the envelope into the nearest mailbox and the

offender would get his/her cellphone back in a few days.

The officer would note the offender's details, and after two offences

the cellphone would be permanently seized.

The above strategy would have the following advantages:

a) The punishment follows straight after the crime. Therefore the

offender links cause and effect.

b) Because the life of most young people is totally focused around

cellphone use, loss of the cellphone (which also probably carries

their entire list of personal contacts) is a serious inconvenience.

This would provide a powerful motivation to modify behaviour in the

future.

c) Cellphones are frequently an expensive item. If the cellphone were

seized for repeat offending, the offender would probably have to pay a

significant amount of money for its replacement, which would have a further

deterrent effect.

ends

© Scoop Media