School of Justice, Security and Sustainability, Ashley 2, Staffordshire University, ST4 2DF, UK.
School of Social, Political and Global Studies, University of Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5AT, UK.
Accid Anal Prev. 2022 Aug;173:106710. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2022.106710. Epub 2022 May 16.
There is a considerable body of literature that outlines the dangers of mobile phone use by drivers. However, there is very little research that explores the role and effectiveness of attempts to tackle this specific road user problem. Generally, normative motives are more likely to generate compliance with traffic law, and are more likely to be developed through approaches which focus on engagement and education. There would seem to be little potential for them to be developed through the use of penalty points and fines, which rely on more instrumental logic. Nonetheless, the decision was made in the UK in recent years to cease offering 'courses' (inputs to detected phone-using drivers offered as an alternative to prosecution) for mobile phone offences. This decision was made despite a lack of evidence one way or another about their effectiveness in tackling both handheld mobile phone use and handsfree mobile phone distraction - a form of distraction not explicitly covered in law. This research project aimed to explore driver education as an alternative to prosecution for mobile phone use while driving offences, focusing on perceptions and experiences of one particular educational intervention. This paper draws on 46 semi-structured interviews with those involved in delivering a specific intervention aimed at reducing handheld mobile phone use by drivers that was previously offered as an alternative to prosecution in the UK; the police officers identifying offenders for referral to such courses, those delivering the intervention, drivers attending the course as an alternative to prosecution and members of the public attending the course as general education. Four key themes, with underpinning subthemes, emerged; 1) Police officer discretion and control over entry into the criminal justice system 2) Police-public interactions, 3) Course experiences, and 4) Post-course considerations. Firstly, police officer discretion is an important determinant of criminal justice system outcome, based on subjective rather than legal decisions about whether or not to report drivers for an offence. Secondly, police officers negotiate encounters with road users using the avoidance of prosecution as a way of diffusing difficult conversations, sometimes by offering a course as a preferable alternative to prosecution, sometimes by encouraging handsfree phone use. Thirdly, course attendance provides an opportunity to develop both normative alignment through increased understanding of police work, and to appreciate a range of instrumental consequences associated with mobile phone use. Both self-reportedly impacted upon mobile phone use while driving. Finally, post-course considerations emphasised a focus on who should be offered courses as an alternative to prosecution, focusing upon desires for both punitive and rehabilitative responses to mobile phone using drivers.
有相当数量的文献概述了司机使用手机的危险。然而,很少有研究探索解决这一特定道路使用者问题的尝试的作用和效果。一般来说,规范动机更有可能促使人们遵守交通法规,并且更有可能通过关注参与和教育的方法来发展。通过使用罚款和罚款来发展它们的潜力似乎很小,因为这依赖于更具工具性的逻辑。尽管如此,近年来英国决定停止提供针对手机使用违法行为的“课程”(作为起诉的替代方案提供给被发现使用手机的司机)。这一决定是在缺乏关于其在处理手持手机使用和免提手机干扰方面有效性的证据的情况下做出的,免提手机干扰是法律未明确涵盖的一种干扰形式。本研究项目旨在探索针对驾驶时使用手机的违法行为的替代起诉的驾驶员教育,重点是对一种特定教育干预措施的看法和经验。本文借鉴了 46 名与提供旨在减少司机手持手机使用的特定干预措施有关的半结构化访谈,该措施在英国之前曾作为起诉的替代方案提供;警察识别罪犯以转介参加此类课程,提供干预措施的人员,作为替代起诉参加课程的司机以及作为一般教育参加课程的公众。出现了四个关键主题,每个主题都有支撑的子主题;1)警察对进入刑事司法系统的酌处权和控制权 2)警察与公众的互动,3)课程体验,以及 4)课程后的考虑。首先,警察的酌处权是刑事司法系统结果的重要决定因素,这是基于主观而不是法律决定,即是否报告司机违法。其次,警察通过避免起诉来与道路使用者进行协商,以此作为化解困难对话的一种方式,有时通过提供课程作为起诉的替代方案,有时则通过鼓励免提电话使用。第三,参加课程提供了一个机会,可以通过增加对警察工作的了解来发展规范一致性,并认识到与手机使用相关的一系列工具性后果。两者都自称对驾驶时使用手机产生了影响。最后,课程后的考虑强调了应向谁提供替代起诉的课程,重点关注应向谁提供惩罚性和康复性的回应,以应对使用手机的司机。