The infantalisation of South African adults proceeds apace. The nanny state has already decreed how much exposure – precisely none – we are to be allowed to character sapping tobacco and booze advertising.
Now it is the turn of Cape Town, which revels in its casting as the ‘mother’ city, to embrace the heavy-handed exercise of parental control. It is not only going to dock our pocket money if we are naughty but it will also confiscate our toys until we learn to behave.
Errant motorists caught with a cellphone in their hands while they are driving will not only be fined but the instrument will be confiscated for 24 hours. If they object to handing it over, they will be arrested.
Mama Pat, the Democratic Alliance mayor, is giving her prefects free rein with the big stick. Who knows what’s next? Maybe second offenders could lose their phones AND have to write as punishment a thousands lines.
Repeat offenders could have their cellphones AND car keys confiscated. They might be gated for a month, except for every Saturday when they would have to make their pedestrian way to the nearest metro police centre, where they’d have to weed flowerbeds and empty dustbins.
While confiscation will ‘help people get the message’, Safety and Security mayoral committee member JP Smith declares officiously, ‘we’re hoping that we don’t have to confiscate any phones. We’re losing lots of money through the additional administrative tasks. It’s the officers’ time, the admin.’
Does anyone else hear in JP Smith’s words the echo of pompous insincerity of headmasters one had thought long forgotten? ‘Bend over and touch your toes, boy. It’s for your own good. This hurts me as much as it is going to hurt you…’
No one is arguing that it is not demonstrably dangerous to drive and be on a cellphone at the same time. Studies implicate cellphone use in six percent of accidents in the United States and driving and using a phone makes an accident four times more likely.
Fine offenders by all means. However, Cape Town is actually the one city where the road death toll has been decreasing steadily. So rather than road accident statistics justifying the new confiscation policy, as the DA claims, it is evidence that this school-prefect approach is an exercise in excessive civic zeal.
It is also likely unconstitutional. Advocate Andrew Pike believes the law, also being contemplated in KwaZulu-Natal, would fail a Constitutional Court challenge.
Pike cites the Constitution’s rights to ‘just administrative action’ and to access to the courts when accused, as well as the prohibition on ‘arbitrary deprivation of property’. On-the-spot seizure of a cellphone is a pre-emptive declaration of guilt and ‘imposes a punishment without a fair trial … Even if you then insist on a trial and then win, the punishment cannot be undone,’ says Pike.
Confiscation is also a bad law in other ways. It means that doctors, emergency workers, the vulnerable, and a vast array of one-man-and-a-cellphone businesses, among others, are going to be telephonically incommunicado for 24 hours on the say-so of a traffic cop who might just have a chip on his shoulder that is bigger than his brain.
There are lessons from the past about bureaucratic fiat that one might expect the supposedly liberal DA to be sensitive to. Do South Africans really want again a system of administrative justice where petty officials play the roles of both cop and judge? Seized cellphones are different only in scale, not in principle, from bureaucrats invalidating at the stroke of a pen residential permits or passports.
Arbitrary confiscation is over the top, probably illegal, and as arrogant in its indifference to rights as is, say, the blue-light convoys that ordinary citizens have to put up with but bitterly resent. But Mama knows best and never, never backs down.
A nanny state is one which tries to stop you hurting yourself. A responsible state is one that tries to stop you hurting others. Comparing this to restrictions on alcohol advertising is ridiculous.
The fact is, fines simply are not working in deterring drivers from talking on their cellphones. Speaking as a Capetonian:
> I’ve nearly been hit at a pedestrian crossing by a driver on his cellphone tearing through, even though the light was red to allow pedestrians to cross.
> On an almost daily basis, I have idiots on their cellphones behind me in traffic showing no following distance. It is just a matter of time until one of these morons is too distracted by their conversation and the back of my car ends up a wreck.
> I’ve lost count of how many times I see someone swerving in front of me at 30km/h…and when I overtake them, guess what? On their cellphone.
Rights can be limited under section 36 of the Constitution, a factor of which is less restrictive means available. Well fines just aren’t working as a less restrictive means, drivers aren’t deterred by the chance of a fine. Plus there is no excuse for not having a hands-free kit, going out and buying one will not be onerous on drivers who may have to take calls.
“But Mama knows best and never, never backs down.”
Cmon now! William. You sound like a teenager who’s been told he can’t have the keys to the car.
Just listen! plain and simple: – if not to Mommy, then to the law!
Pull over if you want to speak on your cellphone: or – if it’s part of your business or preference – get a handset.
And b.t.w., Cape Town has the best ladies in the land – by miles – and none of them drives in fancy, expensive cars either.
The problem with both the DA and the ANC is displacement activity like animals in a Zoo.
NEITHER wants to tackle the real problem of the HOMELANDS and tribal rule over half the population and what used to be half the arable land.
@Charlotte: I do agree with you. A little “slap” comment on a relatively serious issue.
I have had similar experiences off almost collisions and slow hindering drivers on Cellphones.
My suggestion: CT police buys 1000 handfree sets and anyone stopped will be compelled to buy such a set on the spot, signing a commitment to use the thing.
Solving the problem in a more creative way thna just playing mother.
@ William: If you saw how people around CT drive believe me, you’d understand.
Agree 100% William. Some will agree with this kind of heavy handed action because they feel safe in a nanny state.
As it is traffic officials are not know for their towering intellects and affording more power to them with such cases will never turn out well for the public.
If they just do their jobs, being visible and fair. There would be no need to resort to nanny state tactics.
I think that only really drastic action will get motorists to stop driving with one hand on the wheel and the other clutching their cellphone. A simple fine will be laughed off ; having ones phone confiscated, now that hurts. I bet that Cape town will soon have very compliant law abiding drivers. How else do other countries get motorists to obey the laws . In Oz if you get caught driving with so much as a whiff of alcohol in your blood, kiss goodbye to your license for a significant period oftime. Unfortunately it is only through using a very big stick and hurting drivers where it really counts, that there will be better compliance with the law.
Bravo!!
I wish I had the talent to articulate my view as well as you have managed to articulate my view…. Spot on… And to those that are finding it acceptable to be an adult and to be reduced mentally to a child, that is disturbing…If the police have been reduced to resort to this primitive and illegal mentality, we are more ucked than I had thought. The police needs strong leadership by someone with enough experience in policing to turn it around, not another cronyism deployment enforcing authoritarian policies.
If this works and people install car kits in their cars then I’d like to suggest that cops confiscate children not tied into car seats. Seriously…
Would that, then, William, confirm your supposition that we TRULY live in a Nanny State?…lol
The best thing to have happened. Just not enough man power as there are still too many delinquents not obeying the law. Confiscate the phones and double the fines. If they are treated as infants by behaving as such, then so be it! What is the problem. The old adage ….. what you give, you get back. Not more, not less.
In most other countries you would not even think of speaking on your phone. Not because it will be confiscated but because it is against the law.
If people remain incapable of turning off their mobiles and insist of using them while driving, I do hope KZN wastes no time in introducing the same.
Anyone with a brain in his head should realise that a confiscated phone may never be seen again and that’s incentive enough to comply with the law. I seldom drive without being held up by people steering with one hand while chatting, failing to check their rear-view mirrors and completely monopolising the road. It surprises me there isn’t more road rage as a result.
@ cyberdog.
If adults cannot behave as adults should, that is with responsibility and consideration for the lives of others, then they deserve to be treated like children. It is very easy to criticize if you have not experienced personal tragedy because of an ‘adult’s’ irresponsible and selfish action. I think the only people who would object to this are those who are likely to be caught.
As Bernpm says, what about instaling (and using) hands-free cell phone devices, if you are so ‘twinned’ to your phone that you can’t bear to be without it to yack on, even in the interests of driving safely. What is it with people and cell ‘phones? Watched a couple of women (ostensibly having lunch together) but they spent their entire time chatting (to each other??) on their cell phones!
@Clarence Esau…. great idea. Amazed at how many ‘loving’ parents allow their kids to travel unbelted in cars – even allowing them to stand behind the cab of backies. 24-hr Accomodation could be charged at suitable rates to include minders, food etc.
Has it come to anybodies mind that the police has to do this because the judicial system does not support the police.
They “catch” a traffic offender, even in a serious case, and the person’s case drags on, is postponed, finds another excuse and months later gets a slap on the wrist. (Judge Motata, singer JubJub, Mc Bride to name a few).
If their action is “Nanie style” or -for haven’s sake- “unconstitutional”, who cares. Confiscate the cell phone and give it back after 5 days community service instead of the easy way out with a fine of R500.
The funny part about even seasoned journo’s like WSM is that they like to criticise without offering alternatives. I’ll give you an alternative. No laws BUT if you injure or kill someone then you pay; big time. Eye for an eye stuff. I’m not advocating it but just maybe if you knew that killing someone while talking on a cell phone would cost you your life, you wouldn’t make the call? It would certainly take care of repeat offenders.
@Marianne: only a fool can believe that bringing in authoritarian laws will resolve any issues. Right now, both yourself, and Maggie are acting live juveniles by having a knee jerk reaction to something, without doing any sort of research. Should the same mentality apply, which equates to you having your Internet and computers taken away from you. These authoritarian laws are the phases of communism implementation, which, if this is the case, a lot of people will be dying. Which makes you no different to those you are lashing out at. If you bothered to even read what I had written, I agree TOTALLY with NOT using a cellphone while driving, as a matter of fact, I am completely and utterly anal about it, long past being reasonable. And do not speak of other countries, this is a problem internationally. However, bringing in laws which violates my human rights is not a solution at all, find more creative solutions. You do not seem to actually comprehend what you are all gleefully asking for.
The great problem we have in South Africa is the attitude that “the law applies to everyone else except me”. There is no respect and a culture of intolerance pervades.
That being the case, I am encouraged at seeing this initiative and I can’t wait to see it in action as most offenders are too busy talking on their phones to be listening to the news. I hope the authorities enforce this new law because fines ahve proved to be most ineffective
@Cyberdog: “These authoritarian laws are the phases of communism implementation, which, if this is the case, a lot of people will be dying.”
Dealing with drivers who put other people’s lives at risk is “communism implementation”. Oh dear, seems someone is out to compete for Dave Harris’ crown for most ridiculous comments.
You speak of coming up with more creative solutions, yet offer none. South African motorists are not deterred by the less restrictive means of dealing with the problem, i.e. fines. I deal with these cellphone drivers on a daily basis, and as I mentioned in my first post, almost lost my life to one at a pedestrian crossing to one of these self-absorbed idiots.
Rights can be limited if the law in question passes a limitations analysis under section 36 of the Constitution. Given the circumstances:
> Driving with a cellphone puts others lives at risk.
> Fines are not deterring drivers from speaking on their cellphones.
> Those opposed to confiscation can offer no other reasonable less restrictive means.
> Drivers had ample warning to go out and get a hands free set, which is not an onerous requirement to speak on one’s cellphone.
I am pretty sure this would pass a limitations analysis. Looking at section 36, the importance of the limitation cannot be disputed, we are trying to save lives. The nature and extent of the limitation is necessary. There is a relationship between the limitation and its purpose. And the less restrictive means are…
In answer to a suggestion that all new cars be fitted with a handfree cellphone device (just as all new cars are automatically fitted with a car radio), apparently different makes of cell phones use different handfree sets – and some are difficult to procure. … (good marketing opportunity here)
It would seem obvious in today’s world, that all makes of cellphones and handfree cellphone devices should be standardised -(‘one size fits all’) – and routinely fitted in to all new cars.
If we send astronauts into space, and have now purportedly found the ‘God’ particle, it shouldn’t be too difficult to standardise cellphones and handfree sets so that they can be installed in all new cars.
… Another great marketing opportunity …
@ Cyberdog.
“bringing in laws which violates my human rights is not a solution at all”…
What human right are you referring to? If, as you say, you don’t use your cellphone whilst driving, how does this law concern you? It only affects people who break the law. If we lived in an ideal society where everybody cared about the possible consequences of their choices and actions there would be no need for this law. Unfortunately we don’t live in such a society, hence the need for law enforcement.
And we do need protection. The 18 year old daughter of my friend had her pelvis crushed in an horrific accident caused by person who did not stop at a red robot because she was talking on her cellphone. Now nearly two years down the line she (the victim) is still struggling to walk, but more than the pain and trauma she had to endure, her dreams have also been destroyed. She was a talented dancer who had been offered a scholarship to train with a ballet company in San Francisco. Of course that is now completely out of the question, thanks to another person’s selfish and negligent action. So it is hard for me to be objective and ‘do the research’. Frankly, I don’t care if people have their cellphones confiscated. It’s their choice and they must suffer the consequence if they are caught.
Little by little, we complacently surrender our rights. Little rights, big rights, it’s all relative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6
I dont get the problem. If you break the law, you face the consequences. I have started hooting at drivers I see texting or on their phone while driving.
I take exception to people who put my life at risk by being stupid.
“It means that doctors, emergency workers, the vulnerable, and a vast array of one-man-and-a-cellphone businesses, among others, are going to be telephonically incommunicado for 24 hours on the say-so of a traffic cop who might just have a chip on his shoulder that is bigger than his brain.” Please, they can act like law-abiding citizens and pull over and use their phones.
I dont get the fuss…
An accident looms when you go too far
And fiddle with gadgets while driving the car.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Not concentrating when you drive is bad
Taking your eyes off the road is mad
A motor accident can be tragically sad
Put your I-Phone together with its IT pal – ‘ I Pad.’
Be sane. Be sensible. Be safe. Be glad
And don’t drink and drive, neither!
Regarding the suggestion that drivers caught driving on their cellphone be compelled to buy a hands free set on the spot rather than having their phone confiscated, given the mentality of South African motorists, this just won’t work.
Why?
Because then everyone will believe they are free to speak on their cellphones while driving until the first time they get caught, thus continuing to endanger the lives of others.
The harsh reality is South African motorists do not have any consideration for the lives of others, only their own convenience. So my previous points stand.
It is worth mentioning that car kits are not the solution. The research shows that speaking on a hands-free is almost as distracting to the driver as using a handheld cellphone. What the law should stipulate is absolutely no use of a cellular device unless the car has been pulled off the road. The Cape authorities know this, making seizure just a cynical gimmick, aside from likely being unconstitutional.
@WSM: Yes, in a perfect world nobody would talk on a cellphone while driving. Unfortunately, as far as I know, Japan is the only country to have taken this step.
But this does not mean the law dealing with people driving with one hand on the wheel is a bad thing. When all you could get was a fine, motorists who spoke on cellphones showed absolute disregard for the more fundamental rights of others, life and bodily integrity. I’ve already noticed a decline in people with one hand on the wheel while the other hand holds a cellphone to their ear. This is a necessary result that fines just weren’t achieving.
You say it is likely unconstitutional, I say let someone bring this to court. As I have already discussed above, a strong case can be made for this measure passing a limitations analysis under section 36 of the Constitution.
I once had a sneezing fit when driving and that was bad!