Journal of Public Health Advance Access originally published online on September 14, 2006
Journal of Public Health 2006 28(4):395-396; doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdl057
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Correspondence |
Mobile phones and driving: a follow-up
Khalid Hussain
Julien Al-Shakarchi
Anys Mahmoudi
Ali Al-Mawlawi
Tim Marshall
Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK E-mail: kxh313{at}bham.ac.uk
Sirs,
A law banning the use of mobile phones whilst driving was passed in the UK and went into effect on 1 December 2003.1 A study demonstrated that within 10 weeks of enforcement of the new law, mobile phone usage while driving fell from 1.85 to 0.97% across three different sites around Birmingham.2 A correspondence3 in response to this study referred to a similar study conducted in New York, in which although the same sort of post-legislation drop was reported, the figures were then found to return to pre-legislation levels within a year.4 Thus, as a follow-up to the study conducted in Birmingham, we aim to assess the longer-term impact of the legislation 2 years on from its implementation.
To ensure continuity, we replicated all contexts used by Johal et al. in our study. The same three sites were used: a traffic-light T-junction (A), a pedestrian crossing (B) and a roundabout (C). Samples were taken on four consecutive Tuesday evenings between 17:00 and 18:00 hours in October. The results are shown in Table 1—the table also shows the results from the previous study, 10 weeks before and 10 weeks after the legislation was enforced.
|
Our new data show statistically significant rises in the rate of mobile phone usage at two of the three sites since the previous study. The overall rate of mobile phone usage from this data is 1.63%, demonstrating an increase of mobile phone usage back to nearly pre-legislation levels. This is very much in keeping with the results of the New York study of 20044 as well as with anecdotal evidence within the UK itself.5 The apparently anomalous findings in relation to site B are most likely to be explained by the introduction of another road safety measure, speed cameras, a few hundred yards before the observation point, after the original survey. This may well have resulted in drivers’ feeling the need to behave better in other respects concerning road safety.
As mentioned by Paul Pilkington in his correspondence to the initial study, the reasons for the decreasing compliance could be 2-fold. Firstly, after a brief period of compliance, drivers are judging the risk of ‘getting caught’ as minimal and hence returned to using mobile phones whilst driving due to lack of enforcement of the law. Secondly with publicity of the risks of using mobile phones whilst driving diminishing so soon after the legislation, people are forgetting or downplaying these risks and dangers.
Without the fear of being prosecuted, this law has been shown previously4 and on this occasion to be ineffective. Calls for greater enforcement of this law and improved publicity and education are hence the required course of action. We may also benefit from new measures proposed in the UK Road Safety Bill (yet to be passed) seeking to increase the penalty for using a mobile phone while driving from £30 to £60 plus three penalty points.6 The idea of ‘on-the-spot’ fines may also act as a deterrent. It is evident that although the current legislation has certain level of potency, it is very much short-lived and is hence in need of such measures to reduce mobile phone usage whilst driving.
 |
Contribution of authors |
|---|
 TOP Contribution of authors Conflicts of interestEthicsReferences |
|---|
T.M. thought of the idea. K.H., J.A., A.M. and A.A. carried out the observations and wrote the first draft. K.H. wrote the final draft. K.H., J.A., A.M. and A.A. hold the raw data, to which T.M. has access.
|
Conflicts of interest |
|---|
|
TOPContribution of authorsConflicts of interestEthicsReferences |
|---|
None.
|
Ethics |
|---|
|
TOPContribution of authorsConflicts of interestEthicsReferences |
|---|
Ethics committee permission was not required.
Funding source
None.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPContribution of authorsConflicts of interestEthicsReferences |
|---|
- THINK! Road Safety. UK Department of Transport. http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/mobilephones/mobilephones.htm (1 August 2006, date last accessed).
- Johal S, Napier F, Britt-Compton J et al. Mobile phones and driving. J Public Health 2005;27:112–3.
- Pilkington P. Correspondence concerning. ‘Mobile phones and driving’. J Public Health 2005;27:303–7.
- McCartt AT, Geary LL. Longer term effects of New York State’s law on drivers’ handheld phone use. Inj Prev 2004;10:11–5.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - BBC News Online. Motorists ‘flouting mobile ban’ Monday, 8 March, 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3541237.stm (1 August 2006, date last accessed).
- The United Kingdom Parliament. Road Safety Bill (introduced to the House of Commons on 30th November 2004). www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/010/2005010.htm (1 August 2006, date last accessed).
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||