The devil may be in the detail, but it's the detail that's missing in the new regulations about use of mobile phones on the road. Even the Garda are holding fire. Ray Okonski reports on the controversy in which Junior Environment Minister Molloy finds himself
Public controversy over new vehicle regulations concerning the use of mobile phones in cars is pleasing few people, even those who campaigned for improved safety measures.
The Garda Commissioner, Pat Byrne, has referred the new law to the Attorney General for clarification before a directive is issued to the force on implementation. "It's important that my force understand what they are expected to do," the Commissioner has said. "It would be irresponsible of me to issue a directive that said just 'enforce the law' until this clarification is received."
The spokesperson admitted there was no specific timeframe for Attorney General to respond, but until, clarification was received, no action would be taken by Garda to enforce the new ruling.
While no right-thinking person would condone an illegal act, the apparent simplicity of the Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations, 2002 - the statutory instrument of the Minister for State at the Department of the Environment - suggests that it has been drafted in haste and may prove unworkable on a variety of levels.
To ignore party political point-scoring, the devil - as it is often claimed - "is in the detail". On this occasion it is the detail that is sorely lacking, leading to a number of clashing interpretations of what Bobby Molloy actually intended, and what the mobile phone user can legally do.
There is a distinct lack of understanding as to what is actually referred to in the legislation as a "mobile phone". However, use of a factory-fitted hands-free kit turns the phone into a vehicle accessory, dependent on the vehicle for power, external aerial, and microphone/speaker, resolving any ambiguity for the inveterate mobile phone user. The act of clipping the phone into the vehicle cradle converts it from a device that "can be held or have about their person" to a vehicle communications device.
Lengthy mobile conversations can be conducted with impunity, while the driver decides whether to hold the steering wheel, light a cigarette, change radio stations or unwrap a boiled sweet - these last three acts not being deemed necessary to legislate against specifically.
However, the use of alternative hands-free devices which have a non-permanent installation could easily lead to prosecution, with the owner convinced usage is responsible, and with law enforcement agencies having an opposing view.
THESE budget portable hands-free systems, which usually plug into the vehicle lighter socket to charge the phone and supply power to operate an integral speaker and microphone, may provide a similar function to its more expensive alternative. But they will fall foul of the requirement that a phone must not be "on or about" the vehicle's driver.
This also holds true for the so-called hands-free kits, consisting of a miniature earpiece and microphone, connected directly to the accessory socket of the phone by way of a thin cable. To allow the user to operate it, the phone must be on or near you - and the passenger seat or door pocket is near enough. Under the law, both these systems would not permit you to use your phone legally, but with no tell-tale phone pressed to your ear, it would be difficult for the Garda to detect.
Ignoring for the moment the opportunity for drivers of electrically-powered vehicles (as opposed to mechanical ones) to use mobile phones with impunity (there is little danger of milk floats becoming the chosen method of transportation in town) one disturbing fact has been overlooked in the drafting of the regulations. Mobile phones cannot be carried in ANY vehicle, at ANY time if the driver has the ability to reach it. You would be wrong in assuming if your mobile is turned off you'll be in the clear.
THE operational status of the phone is of no consequence; if you can reach it you'll be breaking the law. This could be taken to the ridiculous extremes - assuming the phone was in a pocket belonging to your front seat passenger they can use it because they're not the driver, but if it is close to you, you are already guilty because it is within reach.
Since the introduction of direct dial mobile phones in Ireland in 1986, the type of use this equipment is put to have changed. Voice calls remain important, but data communications have become an important business tool. Text messaging (sometimes referred to as SMS - Short Message Service) has replaced paging as a cost effective alternative to a voice call. Text messages are not as intrusive as voice communication, yet have not been exempted.
Similarly, Vodafone Ireland and Digifone launched GPRS services which have the ability to feed information constantly to the mobile, yet irrespective of whether your phone is on only to receive data, or off it doesn't matter. The mobile phone will enable a conviction and fine.
Even the latest groundbreaking technology called 'Bluetooth' has been specifically disallowed from use. Bluetooth uses low-power radio waves to interconnect a wide range of products, a mobile phone to a laptop, notebook or digital assistant or a cord-free headset.
Developed by Ericsson, a Bluetooth headset can be clipped to your ear and should a call be received on your mobile, the headset would allow you to deal with the call without touching the phone - which may be safely tucked away in a jacket or in your briefcase in the boot.
A Bluetooth headset is deemed to be "other similar apparatus" in the new regulation. As it uses radio waves to connect to the mobile, it, too, is barred. It doesn't matter that the driver cannot physically reach the phone Mr Molloy may not have intended to prevent drivers from physically taking mobile phones for a drive, but his hasty rule may result in challenges from all sides.