New laws that ban the use of mobile phones while driving and playing music on vehicles used for public transport have come quietly into force, leaving motorists divided as authorities prepare for enforcement.
The Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 2008 and the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) (Amendment) Act 2008 came into effect with little fanfare two Saturdays ago when published in the Official Gazette. The Parliament Office has informed the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Commissioner of Police of the activation of the laws.
The Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Amendment) Act sets out that a person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a hand-held mobile telephone or a similar hand-held device, except for hands-free devices or solely in cases where the need arises to communicate emergencies to the disciplined forces, ambulance services or a registered medical practitioner. Meanwhile, the Summary Juris-diction (Offences) (Amendment) Act stipulates that the driver of a motor bus or hire car shall not play or allow anyone to play music in the vehicle while plying its route or parked in a public place.
Along with the new provisions to curb drunk driving, the two laws were passed unanimously by the Parliament in July and August, respectively, but their enactment was delayed by President Bharrat Jagdeo in order for the holding of a public education campaign. The president assented to the laws last week, although there has only been a public relations campaign to educate road users about the new drunk driving laws. While the restriction on the use of mobile phones while driving is unlikely to attract any major controversy, the ban on the playing of music is poised to prove a harder sell among the operators of hire cars and minibuses that provide public transport.
On the latter point, some operators who were canvassed for their views were concerned about enforcement. They said that campaigns were launched against boom boxes and tinting several times in the past but only some were targeted while others were allowed to flout the law.
Minibus driver Errol Horatio told Stabroek News that he was concerned about the way in which the laws have been designed, explaining that the constraints under which operators work need to be taken into consideration. “You must give and take,” he said, “but then you can’t want [to] take everything. Everything got limits”
Horatio, who has been driving a minibus for 15 years, has reservations about both laws. “You can’t drive without music; it is almost impossible,” he noted, adding that it helps drivers stay awake during long sessions on the road. “I support lowering the music but not ‘no music’ at all.” Additionally, he said mobile phones allow operators to stay in contact with their families, particularly in cases of emergency. He dismissed the idea that drivers pull over and use their phones. “The bus is a police target, you know,” he said, “So as long as you pull over you are suspected of a violation.”
For minibus driver Gerald Fernandes, the main issue is equal application of the law. “I don’t criticise none of the rules that they bringing out but it don’t run fair, it does run off balance,” he said. He explained that during past campaigns by the police traffic department only certain operators’ buses were stripped of music boxes and designs. “It happened to me already. [They] take out me music, take off me ribbon, blind, everything and automatically end up back on because they ain’t getting for curb with the other rest of people.” He noted that one factor contributing to the problem is the fact that a lot of members of the police force and the army are operating vehicles on the road. Fernandes welcomed the ban on mobile phones as especially useful since driving on the whole is about concentration and talking on a phone could be a distraction.
Another driver, who only identified himself as “Douglas,” said he had just heard of the laws. He has been operating for 26 years and he thought it was unfair that some operators were being “spited” for the actions of some others. He said the real problem the law is trying to address is not the music, but the type of music and the loud volume. “Some drivers and conductors, you know, they play the music hard and the type of music…,” he said, “Well, I mean, I don’t play it too hard I don’t play certain types of music, ‘dutty’ music, and they can’t just spite the others for one.”
A taxi-driver operating at the Stabroek Car Park said sufficient information has not been given about the laws.
He pointed out that although the law stipulates no music, it remains unclear whether it also applied to the radio broadcasts. If this is the case, he said the law would make no sense since the radio is still widely used for public notices, like in the case of emergency. He was more receptive to the mobile phone law, saying that a lot of persons cannot drive and talk on the phones at the same time.
Another taxi driver said the law would not affect him because his clientele is made up of businesspeople. He said too that driving while talking on cellular phones is dangerous.
The mobile phone restriction on drivers provides for a fine between $5,000 and $10,000 for first-time offenders and a fine between $10,000 and $15,000 for all repeated offences.
A first time offender of the ban on playing music would be liable upon summary conviction to a fine ranging between $7,500 and $15,000 and six months imprisonment. On second conviction, the fine ranges between $10,000 and $20,000 with one-year imprisonment.
Meanwhile, the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, also provides for All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) to be treated as motor vehicles in their respective weight categories and permits them to be used on public and off-highway trails but restricting them from carry more passengers than they were constructed to transport.
The law also provides for harsher penalties for the use of fake licence plates. It says a person who fraudulently imitates, alters, or uses or fraudulently lends or allows to be used by any other person any identification mark or certificate of registration issued or deemed to have been issued on registration of a vehicle under the Act. Persons convicted of this offence are liable to a $1M fine together with imprisonment for two years.
