EDITORIAL - Who are covered, who are exempted?

Because of the way it is written, a portion of a proposed ordinance in Mandaue City that seeks to ban the use of cellphones and other electronic gadgets while driving is rendered confusing. Unless it is revised and rewritten, this confusing portion of the proposed ordinance may cause erroneous interpretations that can lead to something worse, like unwanted confrontations between an alleged violator and an apprehending officer.

The confusing portion of the proposed ordinance against distracted driving reads: "The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to motorists or motor vehicles which are not in motion, except those which are temporarily stopped at a red light, or are pulled over to the side of the road in compliance with a traffic regulation."

The part that says "provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to motorists or motor vehicles which are not in motion" is perfectly clear and understandable. It means that when a motor vehicle is parked or at full stop, the provisions of the proposed ordinance will not apply and therefore the driver can use his cellphone or similar electronic device.

Even the exception to this exception, or the part that reads "except those which are temporarily stopped at a red light" is likewise perfectly clear and understandable. It means that if a motor vehicle is merely stopping at a red light, then its driver is still covered by the provisions of the proposed ordinance and therefore cannot use his cellphone or similar electronic device.

It is when we get to the final part that things become confusing because it is not clear if the part that reads "or are pulled over to the side of the road in compliance with a traffic regulation" is part of the exemption or the exception to the exemption. Is the driver being pulled over, like the driver at a stop sign, not allowed to use his cellphone or similar device, or is he exempted since he is in full stop and might have to make a call?

If the driver being pulled over, like the driver at a stop sign, is not exempted and cannot use his cellphone or other device, then there is no problem with the proposed ordinance as it is written. But if the intention is to allow the driver being pulled over to make a call or use his cellphone or other device as it may be necessary for him to do so (as when he might be late for an appointment), then there might be a need to revise or rewrite that ambiguous portion of the provision.

A clearer and more direct to the point example might be: The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to motorists or motor vehicles that are not in motion but are parked or at full stop, as well as those that have been pulled over in compliance with traffic regulations. Those stopped temporarily at a red light are not covered by this exemption.