Distracted driving, distracted walking » Manila Bulletin News

Manila Bulletin Philippines

Breaking News from the Nation's leading newspaper

Tempo

Online Newspaper

Showbiz and Celebrity News

Sports News

World News
News Asia

Distracted driving, distracted walking

Published

3

The initial attempt to enforce Republic Act (RA) 10913, the Anti-Distracted Driving Act, last May was snagged in controversy when traffic enforcers sought to include bans that were not actually in the law, such as on rosaries hanging from rear-view mirrors and statuettes of the Virgin Mary on dashboards.

The enforcement of the law was held back for a while as all questions were resolved. It was finally carried out last July 6 – minus all the previous bans of the Department of Transportation’s Joint Administrative Order 2014-01. This time, only the ban on using cell phones while driving under RA 10913 was enforced.

The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) reported last week that in the first month of enforcement, it collected P75,000 from fines paid by violators. Some 250 closed-circuit television cameras all over the city caught a total of 547 drivers on video using their mobile phones while driving or waiting at traffic lights – 167 car drivers, 157 motorcyclists, and 82 Asian Utility Vehicle (AUV) drivers.

Distracted driving has become a worldwide problem, causing accidents and delaying the movement of traffic. It is hoped that effective enforcement of the Anti-Distracted Driving Act will help mitigate the overall traffic problem in Metro Manila, which new MMDA Chairman Danilo Lim has focused on. He has also closed down several city bus terminals and deployed enforcers to stop illegal parking on city streets.

Other cities around the world are trying to cope with the problem posed by people distracted by their cell phones. Honolulu in the US state of Hawaii has gone further – its city council has enacted a ban on pedestrians looking at their mobile phones or texting while crossing streets. “We hold the unfortunate distinction of being a major city with more pedestrians being hurt on crosswalks, particularly our seniors, than almost any other city in the country,” the city mayor said.

So now we have laws and ordinances on distracted driving and distracted walking. The ubiquitous mobile phone has changed the life and habits of millions of people around the world and we may expect more efforts in the future to protect people from other distractions it may cause.

Opponents of the Honolulu bill argued that it amounted to government overreach and infringed on personal freedom. We just have to be alert that this does not happen here. For the present, let us just have the ban on distracted driving and hope that it contributes to the overall effort to speed up the traffic in Metro Manila.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • told youso55

    It’s so ridiculous that they could think up this stupid law when what is needed instead is a law that prevents killer drivers from fleeing the scene of a serious vehicular crash involving injury or death/multi-deaths .

    Without such a law how can we be sure that:

    1) The fleeing driver did not just flee to detox of alcohol, drugs or any incriminating evidence before surrendering to authorities at a later time (we see this a lot).

    2) A company driver at fault at the wheel is commonly switched with one of clean record and well rested to surrender to authorities, done to cover-up civil liability that their employee(s)…

    – does not have the required drivers’ licence/pro-competency
    – has multiple out-standing or serious previous road violations
    – was made to take extremely long-hauls to the point of exhaustion/ sleep deprivation

    The company will argue that there was no negligence involved as per the testimony of the (switched) driver. Almost always the case is dropped as an accident, with some small negotiated cash settlement to the victims family if they are lucky.

    3) It is to be considered a criminal offense to flee the scene of a fatal vehicular accident, if any driver fears for his life from an enraged mob as is the usual alibi, they must within a few hours surrender to the nearest police out-post to be accompanied or themselves go directly to the nearest hospital to undergo medico-legal examination for intoxication as well as to ascertain their physical fitness to be driving etc.

    4) In case of vehicular injury/deaths, phone-gadgets of the driver involved must be surrendered to police authorities for forensic exam to determine if it was in use, and the cause of negligent-distraction. Notice that under this new law, that is not required, so immediately following the accident the driver at fault can merely deny that he was texting or using his gadget. That’s the main defect of RA 10913.