By MP for Aljunied GRC, Pritam Singh
[Delivered in Parliament on 8 September 2014]
Madam Speaker,
Thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill, which I support. Nonetheless, I seek clarifications from the Minister on Clause 14.
Clause 14 of the Bill reenacts Section 65B to cover all hand-held devices which are designed or capable of being used for a communicative function. This extends the offence to the use of the device’s non-communicative functions, such as surfing on the Internet, visiting social media platforms and downloading videos. The new laws are envisaged to apply to devices such as tablet computers and any communicative device, not only mobile phones.
The proposed law does not explicitly ban the use of such devices if they are mounted on the dashboard or windscreens of vehicles or if they are used at traffic junctions. Some motorists have remarked this would mean it would not be illegal to type out an email on a device, which has been mounted on a vehicle’s dashboard while driving along a busy road. As far as the Bill stands, a driver could conceivably type out an email while driving as long as the device is mounted, and he will not fall foul of Section 65B.
I am not sure whether this is necessarily a better way to reduce the number of distractions a driver can fall victim to, especially if Members consider the fast pace of life in Singapore and our increasingly crowded roads. To this end, a part-time taxi driver was quoted in The Straits Times musing, “What is the difference between holding the phone and mounting it in a holder? I have a holder and when I touch the phone on the holder, I’m not concentrating. It’s not an offence, but it’s still a distraction.”
While the taxi-driver’s concerns are valid – a motorist could possibly nonetheless fall foul of another section, namely Section 65 of the Act, which makes out an offence of driving without due care and attention, and without reasonable consideration. However, for an enforcement officer, in view of the broad catch-all ambit of Section 65 of the Road Traffic Act, it would appear that it would take an egregious violator to result in a successful prosecution.
To this end, I would like to ask the Minister, how many motorists have been summoned under the catch-all Section 65 last year and in the first half of this year with specific reference to being distracted on mobile devices, including tablets etc.? Secondly, according to the National Safety Council in the U.S., 23% of all crashes each year involve handphone use. I would like to ask the Minister, if the Ministry keeps similar statistics on the local situation and if he could share them with this House.
Madam Speaker, while I welcome the clarity and updating of Section 65B, this clause could have been more emphatic about the dangers of being distracted by communicative devices of any nature while in a vehicle. Numerous local media reports since the Bill was first read in the House have noted that Singaporeans regularly use phones and mobile devices while driving, especially when waiting for the lights to change at traffic junctions. The President of the Automobile Association of Singapore citing a 2013 American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety and University of Utah report was quoted in The Straits Times, noting that the use of mobile devices could distract drivers in two ways. Firstly, through “inattention blindness”, where drivers fail to visually process or remember what their eyes see, and secondly, through “tunnel vision”, where drivers gaze centrally ahead instead of scanning their surroundings.
Foreign jurisdictions, in view of the danger of surrounding the use of mobile devices while driving, host clearer laws with less ambiguity – make enforcement less subjective and more straightforward. For example, in the UK, it is illegal to drive using a handheld phone or a similar device even if one is stopped at a traffic light or queuing in traffic. A driver can nonetheless use a hands-free kit, 2 way-radio or a satellite navigation device, but is nonetheless liable to be stopped and penalized if the police think the driver is distracted and not in control of the vehicle. The laws are broadly similar in Australia.
More fundamentally, under the re-enacted Section 65B, an offence is only made out if the “motor vehicle is in motion”, akin to current legislation under the same section. It would appear that this section’s re-enactment could have afforded the Ministry a better opportunity to send a stronger signal to the public on the dangers with regard to the use of communicative devices on the road per se.
To this end, I would like to enquire from the Minister, what deliberations took place in the Ministry when determining the amendments to Section 65B on this point, especially when compared to the laws in foreign jurisdictions? What differences are present in foreign jurisdictions as compared to the local situation, which merits our laws allowing the use of mobile devices at traffic stops and junctions? Does this not encourage the continued use of the device should the signal change – perhaps just to type out the final line of an SMS or email on a tablet mounted on the dashboard or worse, send out an email while driving. If so, how effective is the law in really changing the behavior of motorists on the road?
In conclusion, I certainly hope the amended Section 65B arrests the prospect of errant drivers and as a consequence reduces the number of summons Singaporeans receive under Section 65B. However, an approach targeted at behavioral change may well be more useful in getting motorists to improve their driving habits with a view to better road safety, and separately, more straightforward enforcement well. I hope the Ministry considers this going forward.
Thank you.