Distracted
This distraction of a law started when senators Bong Revilla, Jinggoy Estrada, and Sergio Osmeña III filed Senate Bill No. 3211 with the Senate Committee on Public Services, aiming to protect people‚ “from the ruinous and extremely injurious effects of vehicular accidents‚” caused by the “unrestrained use of electronic mobile devices.
At the House, a similar bill was introduced as House Bill No. 4531 by Tarlac Rep. Susan Yap, Northern Samar Rep. Harlin Abayon, Buhay Party-list Reps. Irwin Tieng and Lito Atienza, Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Antipolo Rep. Romeo Acop, DIWA Party-list Rep. Emmeline Aglipay, Camarines Sur Rep. Rolando Andaya, Jr., Catanduanes Rep. Cesar Sarmiento, Camiguin Rep. Xavier Jesus Romualdo, and Quezon Rep. Angelina Tan.
Congress later passed a joint bill that lapsed into law in July 2016 after then President Aquino did not sign nor veto it. As early as September 2016, in a column, I already questioned the wisdom of RA 10913 or the Anti-Distracted Driving Act and why lawmakers passed what I deemed a “distracted” piece of legislation.
I deemed it distracted because I felt the law lacked focus. It was thus unsurprising that come implementation time this month, the whole thing became a major brouhaha, with the government deciding to “defer” the law enforcement until after a review of its implementing rules. RA 10913 is a poor attempt to copy US laws on distracted driving.
According to the US Governors Highway Safety Association, not one US state completely bans all cellphone use for all drivers. But, 38 states and Washington DC ban all cellphone use only by novice drivers (16 years old, or 17 years old with Intermediate License for shorter than six months), while 20 states and DC also prohibit it for all school bus drivers.
Only 14 states, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam and the US Virgin Islands actually prohibit all drivers from using handheld cellphones while driving, and an officer may cite a driver for using a handheld cellphone without any other traffic offense taking place.
As for text messaging, DC passed a ban in 2007. Currently, 46 states, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam and the US Virgin Islands all ban text messaging for all drivers. And of the four states without an all-driver texting ban, three prohibit text messaging by novice drivers, and one restricts school bus drivers from texting.
Locally, RA 10913 appears to be more of an “all cellphone ban,” as its prohibits any motorist or driver in a motor vehicle in motion or temporarily stopped at a red light from using a “mobile communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication or to make or receive calls, and other similar acts”; or using “an electronic entertainment or computing device to play games, watch movies, surf the Internet, compose messages, read e-books, perform calculations, and other similar acts.”
By motorist, the law refers to any person driving or operating any enginedriven motor vehicle, whether public or private, including motorcycles and tricycles. Liability is not limited to drivers but also extends to the “owners and/or operators of public utility vehicles and commercial vehicles such as delivery vans, cargo trucks, container trucks, school and company buses, hotel transports, cars or vans for rent, taxi cabs, and the like.”
But, conflict lies in the fact that the law states that using a “mobile communications device” is “not considered to be distracted driving if done using the aid of a hands-free function or similar device such as, but not limited to, a speaker phone, earphones and microphones or other similar devices which allow a person to make and receive calls without having to hold the mobile communications device.”
Provided, however, that the “placement of the mobile communications device or the hands- free device does not interfere with the line of sight of the driver.” It thus appears that the law does not exactly prohibit drivers from using their cellphones while driving. What it prohibits, it seems, is only the holding of the cellphone and using it while you drive.
As such, RA 10913 can also be interpreted more as a “hands-free” law, and not a law against “distracted driving” in the truest sense of the term. An option, it seems, is to pull over if you intend to use your phone. You may be a traffic obstruction in the process, but you will not be considered guilty of “distracted driving.”
And given that RA 10913 appears to be limited to or directed exclusively against the holding ( but not necessarily the use) of cellphones while driving, in this regard, is there any big difference between holding a phone while driving and other distractions like holding a coffee cup, or a cigarette, or a hamburger, or attending to a child in the rear seat?
Strictly speaking, distracted driving is doing anything other than driving when operating a motor vehicle. Anything that takes your hands off the wheel or takes your attention away from focused driving is a distraction and causes distracted driving, and can compromise the safety of the driver, passengers, bystanders and those in other vehicles, and at the same time slow the flow of traffic.
RA 10913, pending amendments or repeal, will benefit from clarification. Its implementing rules should have been reviewed and refined prior to implementation. Moreover, a proper “Information and Education Campaign” should have been done ahead, and not just before implementation. Apparently, a campaign is now set to be launched only after the implementing rules have been reviewed, post-enforcement.
I believe we would not be in this mess now if in drafting RA 10913, lawmakers had conducted proper study on the matter, which would have allowed them to set correct, concise, and clear standards in the law. They should have reviewed research papers and studies, and consulted experts and other stakeholders through public hearings and the solicitation of position papers.
I support a distracted driving law in the same way that I support a seat belt law. But, implementation should not go beyond what the law had intended. Moreover, implementing rules should be cognizant of the role of technology‚ “and their interfaces like handheld devices or mobile phones” in people’s everyday lives.
With respect to standards, the arbitrariness of determining what constitutes line of sight, for instance, has become a major sticking point. Drafting the law, in this sense, would have benefitted from a more thorough study of global standards and practices with respect to distracted driving legislation.
For instance, under “Subpart D” of the code book of the Federal Highway Administration of the US Department of Transportation, a car’s windshield must be free of discoloration or damage “in the area extending upward from the height of the top of the steering wheel (excluding a 51-mm border at the top of the windshield) and extending from a 25-mm border at each side of the windshield.”
In addition, glazing or tinting of windshields as well as front windows to the left and right of the driver, is allowed, provided “the parallel luminous transmittance through the colored or tinted glazing is not less than 70% of the light at normal incidence.”
And with respect to “obstructions” to the driver’s so-called “field of view,” the code states that “devices must not be mounted more than 152 mm below the upper edge of the windshield.” In addition, devices “must be located outside the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver’s sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.”
Moreover, devices or stickers or decals should not go beyond or “extend more than 115 mm from the bottom of the windshield.” Again, these should be “located outside the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver’s sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.”
I am certain these US Federal standards were set with the benefit or research and study. There is thus no harm, for example, in adopting such standards if Philippine lawmakers feel them to be appropriate or suitable with respect to how mobile phones or navigational devices can be mounted on cars.
I truly believe that in the case of RA 10913, the blame is on the legislative process. Lawmakers hastily passed a law using a narrow-minded approach and without full regard for its unintended consequences. With this, I leave them with two thoughts: think before you act, and, haste makes waste.
Lawmakers hastily passed the anti-distracted driving law without full regard for its unintended consequences.
�