Editorial: Get on with cellphone ban in cars

Quite why the Government is delaying a ban on drivers using hand-held cellphones is something of a mystery. A report to the Cabinet by transport officials last April, acquired by the Herald under the Official Information Act, merely confirms the good sense of the 26 countries - including Britain, Japan and some states of Australia - that have outlawed the practice. It also explains why the likes of the Automobile Association some time ago, and the Insurance Council now, have switched from being opponents of a ban to vocal supporters. The Government, it seems, is one of a small and shrinking group of doubters.

Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven defends the inaction by saying more research is required, especially on the wider issue of driver distractions. He is fond of equating cellphone use with attending to crying children in the back seat or changing a CD. The comparison makes no sense. First, it comes close to condoning a new, and increasingly prevalent, distraction by viewing it as simply one more addition to the list of reasons for losing concentration. Secondly, and most importantly, it denies the fact that this distraction, unlike misbehaving children and most other bad driving habits, can be remedied easily.

The statistics supplied to the Cabinet by the Ministry of Transport remove any need for further investigation. Among other things, they suggest that 17 cellphone-related road fatalities have occurred since 1997. Unsurprisingly, the number of fatal crashes has increased along with the skyrocketing popularity of mobile phones. The addition of the hazard that is texting, especially by young, inexperienced drivers, suggests the problem can only worsen if no action is taken. The number of people killed in cellphone-related accidents remains a relatively small percentage of the road toll. But one death is too many when a simple solution is available. As much was recognised by countries which, guided by research that found using hand-held phones could quadruple the risk of accidents, have imposed bans. Whatever the quibbles about individual pieces of research, the overall tenor of the findings is conclusive.

In one area only is there a need for further investigation. That relates to the question of hands-free cellphone kits. The bans in Britain and Australia affect only drivers using hand-held phones. That is how it should be here, in the meantime at least, while the jury is out on hands-free kits. These kits are a technological response to the inherent danger of hand-held phones, just as modern car radios are worked off the steering wheel, not the dashboard. There is no doubt they are safer. It could be, however, that they still present too great a threat. The physical challenge may have gone, but logic suggests that, whether or not a driver's hands are on the wheel, concentration can be lost while talking on a phone.

Auckland's congested traffic means there has often been every incentive for drivers to use cellphones and conduct business from behind the wheel. The prevalence of the practice - and cellphones' value to tradespeople - means many people would face sizeable costs if they had to fit hands-free kits. Many others would jib at a $150 fine for using a hand-held phone. For them the practice is so ingrained that they are prepared to disregard the danger they pose to other road-users.

Some suggest this is the reason the Government is doing nothing; that in an election year it does not want to upset too many people. If so, it is guilty of egregious timidity. The fortification it seems to require should be provided by AA surveys that show a clear majority of members favour a ban. And by the clarity of the evidence on hand-held phones and the way other countries have heeded it. Transport officials say a ban would save at least one life a year. That is a life worth saving. The Government will not be thanked by the next family left mourning the victim of an avoidable accident.