Submission re – proposed amendments to mobile phone road rules
1. We refer to and thank you for your email dated 8 February 2021 regarding further proposed changes to mobile phone road rules (“the Proposed Changes”) and the opportunity to comment regarding same.
2. For completeness, we have attached a copy of our letter dated 24 January 2020 which outlined various concerns with AI-detected mobile phone offences (“our Letter”). Noting the changes to the Act that occurred in 2020, we maintain the position taken in our Letter.
3. In direct response to the Proposed Changes, we reiterate that a solution to the issue of driver distraction is not capable of resolution via the use of artificial intelligence to detect offences. On the terms of the amended primary legislation, this simply means that the power to enforce law becomes easier and automated. An increased ease by which law may be enforced is not a legitimate means to addressing the issue of distracted drivers.
4. In response to the consultation paper that details the Proposed Changes, we are concerned that the statement “Queensland's proposal would go slightly further, but this is considered reasonable as described below in the next section” significantly understates the position being adopted in the proposed amendments which go beyond other States and Territories by including “operating any other function of the phone” in the proposed definition of “use” at s. 300(2)(d) of the Queensland Road Rules.
5. This definition would go beyond the intention of using law enforcement as a deterrent to people being distracted by mobile phones resting on their laps whilst operating a motor vehicle to include people, for example, using Bluetooth for music within a vehicle (which is not an offence) or using a mobile for the GPS navigation (which is not an offence). In our respectful opinion, uncertain and ambiguous definitions will create confusion and difficulty in communicating the intention of the proposed amendments as expressed at page four (4) of the consultation paper.
6. We do not accept that such a broad ranging definition of “use” should to be included in the proposed amendments and this ought to be removed.
7. Otherwise, and notwithstanding the position taken against AI-detected offences and the reversal of the onus of proof expressed in our Letter, we accept the proposed amendments to the definition of “use”.
8. We trust that submission is of assistance and please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further information or comment.