PETALING JAYA: Road safety expert Assoc Prof Dr Law Teik Hua from Universiti Putra Malaysia says the use of cellphones is not the only behaviour that distracts motorists when driving.
Road safety research indicates that certain activities such as vaping, allowing pets to move freely within the vehicle, and engaging in conversations with other passengers, significantly distract drivers and increase the risk of road accidents.
“Despite the substantial impact on driver attention and safety, these activities are not currently prohibited by traffic laws. It is important for drivers to be aware of the potential dangers associated with such distractions and take personal responsibility for prioritising road safety while driving,” he told The Star.
Law added that it is pertinent for the government to revise road safety laws or to implement awareness measures to educate the public, especially drivers about the potential risks associated with these unsafe driving behaviours.
“By either updating the existing laws or raising awareness, we can work towards reducing the prevalence of these hazardous activities on the road and ultimately enhance overall road safety,” said Law.
Legal expert Amer Ashrhaf Azuddin said there are no specific provisions in the Road Traffic Rules 1959 on distractions such as vaping or smoking when driving, and as such, allows the matter to be still debated.
“To date, only the usage of cellphone is specifically prohibited as under Rule 17A of the Road Traffic Rules 1959, which provides for the prohibition on the use of hand-held phones.
“It stated that no driver, while driving a motor vehicle on a road, shall use, or attempt to use, a hand-held telephone or any other communication equipment unless it is used through a hands-free kit,” said Amer, who added that he is of the opinion that the scope of Rule 17A is very restricted, as it applies only to “holding the phone”.
This leaves the act of placing the phone on the lap while the vehicle is stationary such as at a traffic light as an arguable matter, as that it does not fall as “an act of driving” under the Rules, hence it does not attract the prohibition in Rule 17A, he said.
Usage of phones aside, Amer argued that any other activity or matters such as smoking, vaping or any other acts that leads to reckless or careless driving/riding that endangers the public, might quality as an offence under Section 42 of the Road Transport Act 1948.
For motorists letting animals or pets roam freely in the vehicle, Amer said Rule 33(1) of the Road Traffic Rules 1959 is something to be looked at.
“The rule provides that animals on a public road must be attended to, or be under proper control. Yet, there are no specific provisions or legislation to govern the presence of pets or animals in a vehicle,” he said.
For motorists transporting children, Amer said safety measures are also applicable for them.
“The law is quite specific on this, Rule 4B(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Safety Seat Belts) Rules 1978 provides that every child in a motor vehicle shall be placed in an appropriate child restraint system.
“The rules specify a child as a person who is under the age of 12, and of less than 36kg in weight, and of less than 136cm in height.”
Keyword: Distracted driving: Plenty of reasons to lose focus, but laws are debatable