TRAFFIC authorities have moved swiftly to implement the Anti-Distracted Driving Act as it came into effect last week, eagerly warning motorists what they could not do in their vehicles.
Specifically, drivers are prohibited from using communication devices and other electronic, entertainment and computing gadgets while driving or even while waiting for the traffic light to go green or while on a temporary stop at an intersection.
That means drivers may not take calls or send and receive text messages on their mobile phones while they are behind the wheel.
Traffic and navigational apps like Waze and Google Maps can still be used but drivers must set their preferred destinations before their departure. Gadgets with these applications can only be installed in areas that will not obstruct the driver’s view. Mounting phones on the dashboard will no longer be allowed.
The lead agency implementing the law is the Land Transportation Office under the Department of Transportation. The LTO can deputize the police, the MMDA and local government units to carry out enforcement functions.
The penalties are stiff. Violators will be fined P5,000 for the first offense, P10,000 for the second offense and P15,000 for the third offense with a three-month suspension of the driver’s license. Violations incurred beyond the third offense will result in the revocation of the driver’s license and a fine of P20,000.
The rationale behind the law and its stringent penalties is the mistaken notion that using a cell phone while driving is a major cause of road accidents.
A 2016 National Statistics Office report, for example, shows that there were 1,290 road accidents caused by the use of cell phones while driving. This was a mere 3 percent of the total 43,306 accidents in those three years.
So what were the most common causes? They were bad overtaking (18 percent), overspeeding (16.7 percent), bad turning (15.16 percent), and mechanical defects (11.5 percent). Data from the three years showed the number of accidents caused by the use of cell phones while driving actually declined, from 608 in 2010 to only 173 in 2012, an indication, perhaps, that campaigns against texting while driving were working.
What do these figures tell us? That the top three reasons for road accidents, making up more than half of the total, are all the result of poor discipline and driver education.
If the object were really to reduce road accidents, it would seem logical to begin with their biggest cause—poor driver education and bad discipline. In fact, the government might want to do something about another major cause of accidents—road defects or road repairs, which accounted for almost 10 percent of all accidents from 2010-2012.
The intention is clear and the law was lauded in the beginning. Indeed irresponsible behavior—texting and calling while driving, specifically—must be changed, even as the numbers have been going down and their share to the total number of road accidents is small.
We say now, however, that there must be distinction on how mobile phones are used. It is one thing to text, and quite another to use applications like Waze and Google Maps.
There is simply no data to show that the use of navigational aids on the dashboard are distracting enough to cause accidents. By and large, these applications have been a boon to motorists, helping them find their way and avoid congested roads. One could argue that positioning them under the dashboard would be even more dangerous that having them on top of it, as this would require a downward glance to check the navigational aid.
It would seem a government that cared for its motorists would not hinder, much less penalize them, for using such technologies that help them in their daily lives.
The gusto with which the authorities are now prepared to arrest or ticket motorists who violate this misguided law is reminiscent of the callousness we associate with the previous administration. Against the backdrop of the miserable failures in the past by agencies such as the LTO and the MMDA, this campaign against “distracted driving” is simply another onerous and unjust imposition.