Case Study: Westcotec phone detection warning system
continued...
Contemporary graphics
Early versions of the sign featured a graphic of an older style phone (with buttons and an aerial). One of
our early meetings with Westcotec involved us suggesting that this should be brought up to date to avoid
drivers disassociating from the message (‘my phone doesn’t look like that: the message doesn’t relate to me’).
Westcotec subsequently redesigned the image to be more contemporary (and this interaction became part of
the motivation for this whole compendium project).
Shaming of offenders
Our research into Westcotec products, and our KEC discussion, did lead us to briefly consider suggesting
adding the licence plate of the triggering vehicle to the flashing image (the Westcotec website shows this
is possible for their speed warning product via an ANPR reader). However, given that the device can be
triggered by entirely legal use (hands-free or by a passenger), we consider this to be a somewhat risky
approach. Although shame can be an effective method of securing compliance, in the right circumstances
and when handled in the right way¹, it would be unwise to publicly shame those that are not acting illegally
or dangerously. We considered that we would be embarrassed by seeing our registration number flashed for
all around to see, but angered if it was not us as drivers using the phone. We might also be alienated from
the authorities we perceived to be ‘behind’ the use of the sign, because it accused us unfairly². We therefore
discounted this approach. The downsides of this were, we feel, sufficient to outweigh the positive shaming
effects of identifying offending drivers who were the trigger in some cases, but not all.
A specific message
We also considered other ways of making the signs message more specific in terms of what behaviour was
actually being highlighted. One way of doing this would be to include the text ‘when driving’ above or below
the graphic to make it clear that the warning was being issued to those using their phones while driving.
This addition would mean that any passengers who activated the sign would receive the general education
message, but not feel unjustly ‘flashed’. Our focus on procedural justice (p60-61) explains why it is important to
be seen to be consistent in our response in a way that is respectful and polite.
Challenges
One issue that we have identified is that, because many members of the public do not subscribe to the reasons
for the device (see the sections on normative and instrumental compliance p59), they are preoccupied with
pointing out what they see as its limitations and flaws. This is a common problem when a technological fix is
directed at a problem that some people simply do not believe exists, or when that population is suspicious of
the motives of the authorities³. We therefore explored those arguments in more depth in order to be able to
offer some pre-emptive challenges that would help clarify the message.
¹ Braithwaite, J., 1989. Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
² Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T.R., 2003. The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & society review, 37(3), pp.513-548.
³ Wells, H., 2012. The fast and the furious: Drivers, speed cameras and control in a risk society. Ashgate: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
134