It should have been an open-and-shut case. Everyone agrees that texting, calling, and using your cellphone for any use while driving is a dangerous proposition, and there must be laws to prohibit such practices.
The World Health Organization backed this up, stressing that “the distraction caused by mobile phones is a growing concern for road safety.”
And so, our public officials, on May 18, did implement such a law, Republic Act 10913, or the Anti-Distracted Driving Act (ADDA).
What the government didn’t get down pat were the specifics in its implementing rules and regulations (IRR), opening up so many loose ends that our very “philosophical” traffic enforcers could interpret as they wished, and as “needed by the moment.”
As of press time, Senators JV Ejercito and Tito Sotto, as well as other concerned civic, religious and commuter groups, called on the Department of Transportation and the Land Transportation Office to temporarily suspend the enforcement of the Anti-Distracted Driving Act until motorists’ confusions are ironed out regarding the law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations. As of May 23, the DoTR had announced it was suspending the ADDA for further evaluation.
In the meantime, online chaos has erupted following the enforcement of the ADDA. A deluge of fired-up rants dominated our feeds, many of which were hilariously so Pinoy in form and substance.
Here are some of the more notable public posts we spotted:
1. This re-post, shared by lawyer Robby Consunji, Top Gear Philippines columnist, comes with his comment: “Baseless, arbitrary and whimsical enforcement must STOP!”:
Enforcer: Pinara po kita para ipaalam na may violation po kayo sa Anti-distracted driver violation law RA 10913.
Me: Specifically, ano po violation ko dun?
Enforcer: Yung dashcam po ninyo.
Me: Nasa likod ng rearview mirror. Mali ho ba pwesto?
Enforcer: Nakaharang po line of sight ninyo. Distracted kayo.
Me: Brad, ang kamay ko nasa manibela. Ang kamay ko nasa steering wheel. Paano ako distracted? Nakafocus ba senses ko sa dashcam?
Enforcer: Lisensya po?
Me: Hindi ko ibibigay dahil di ako kumbinsido. Tawagin mo supervisor mo.
Enforcer: Deputized po ako manghuli.
Me: Public servant ka, dapat mainterpret mo ng maayos ang batas.
Enforcer: Titikitan kita, Sir.
Me: Hindi mangyayari yan hanggat di mo napapaliwanag. Heto checklist at FAQ from LTO may litrato pa.
Nakita mo ba ako, may tinatawagan, nagttext, naglalaro, nanonood ng pelikula, nag cacalculate, nagbabasa, nag iinternet o alin man dyan?
Enforcer: (Pause. tahimik) Wala po ser.
Me: So hindi pedeng ganyan, alam namin batas kaya hindi namin lalabagin yan at huhulihin niyo lang sa unang tingin.
Enforcer: Sige na ser, abante na.
Lesson: always be prepared and know your rights and privileges as road user. And don’t be intimidated.
2. Automotive expert Alex Loinaz posts: “The biggest problem is the various individual interpretation of the law by lawyers in the absence of a judicial proceeding that can once and for all decide how the law on ‘Distracted Driving’ should be interpreted.
“A classic case in point is a vehicle dash cam, radar detector, vehicle lane recognition technology, or lane departure alarm, crash avoidance alarms that alert the driver and alter the vehicle’s travel.
“These devices are called autonomous functioning devices similar to driverless vehicles now operating in several countries. The driver does not operate or intervene in its function.
“The operative word here is ‘autonomous’. However, in the Distracted Driving Act, the operative word is ‘using,’ referring to distracted driving Sec. 3 (b) Using ‘Electronic entertainment and computing devices’ and Sec. 3 (e) ‘mobile communication devices’.
“Sec. 5 ‘Extent of Coverage’ is very specific with regard to the operation of these devices and does not cover dash cams or similar autonomous devices.
“Why should a motorist be penalized for mounting these devices on their windshields when these devices operate autonomously without driver intervention? These are mounted usually behind the rear view mirror for effective angle coverage and some are mounted on the level of the dashboard for effective sweep.
“This is the problem today, the different interpretation of the law in the absence of an Implementing Rule (IRR) and an information campaign as required by law. A perfect situation and ingredient for corrupt traffic law enforcers.”
3. Netizen Pinoy Joyride said: “Maybe it might be wise to bring back the new law to the drawing board and strengthen the guidelines as it is causing too much debate, from media outlets to socmed to various people having [their] own interpretation of the law.
“I do know safety is one of the concerns but if it is somewhat … an inconvenience to most of the people, it is deemed questionable then.”
4. Migs G. Hipolito writes: “Eto, hindi ba distraction din sa mga drivers ang mga billboards sa kalsada? Pag nakita namin si Angel Locsin, si Anne Curtis, si James Reid, … or kapag may bagong ads na binabasa namin … or yung mga nasa big LEDs dba nakaka distract yun?”
He posts again: “Yung car wipers, nasa line of sight … nakaka distract tuwing gagamitin. Malamang ipatanggal na din ng MMDA at DOTr.”
5. Jen Calimon: “Ayan mga baby, sa sobrang cute niyo raw nakaka-distract na raw kayo. Sows! (Hindi sila diyan originally nakalagay, sa gilid lang ng windshield.)
6. Uzzi Asuncion posted an image of a car without a rear view mirror: “Tinanggal ko na rear view mirror ko. Baka bawal rin e. Mahirap na.”
7. Motoring mediaman Earl Manalansan posted: “Nobody can tell me to put away my rosary that’s hanging from my rear view mirror. Nobody. Constitution of the Philippines, Article 3: Freedom of Religion.
8. Motoring journalist Vernon Sarne posted a humorous image of an MMDA’s Q&A where a driver is asking law enforcers if they can apprehend his wife for fighting with him while he is driving.
Sarne said: “Wala sa implementing rules and regulations ito.”
9. Ronnie Reyes posted an image of a mobile phone placed in a cupholder near his aircon, and writes: “Even before the anti-Distracted Driving law, I am already doing this so I guess it’s safe.”
10. RV Torres advised: “Leave your phone in your trunk on purpose so you won’t mistakenly use it while driving. Itong law na ’to, parang minadaling tapusin at ipasa. Punyeta. Daming loopholes.”
11. Henry R. Recato posted an image of a driver with a hands-free phone on his ear, and a mounted mobile phone running the Waze app: “Better remove gadget holders from windshield and hide your gadgets. My kotong-sense is tingling. Bawal din ba ganitong pagkabit ng cp?”
12. Lost Wandering drifter: “Shout out to LTO and the idiots behind the anti-distracted driving law for foregoing common sense and ruining what could’ve been useful.”
13. Edu D. Fourth: “Identify the author and co-authors of anti distracted driving law, and never vote for them again. The intention and idea is good, but the premise is s—ty.”
14. Manny Sator: “Simpler and cleaner set-up: magnetic mount on the AC vent.”
15. Johan Vincent Salarda: “How would those lawmakers know what ‘line of sight’ means if most of them don’t even drive and have chauffers to drive them around?”
16. Malditang Biyahera: “Bawal na din daw po umupo sa unahan ang mga sexy at magagandang babae! Nakaka-distract daw kasi ng mga drivers!”
17. Honeyvi Monterverde: “Jeepneys are exempted. Go home MMDA, you’re drunk!”
So, if you do get yourself in a pickle with traffic enforcers forcing you to admit you were distracted with your dashcam or your village sticker, here’s sound advice from Alberto Suansing, secretary general of the Philippine Global Road Safety Partnership: “Just bring with you always a copy of the IRR of the ADDA, and point out to them that you know enough of the law to make you an informed law-abiding citizen.”
Then maybe post the dashcam video showing the enforcer making an ass of himself.
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
