With reference to this 'No handphones policy', I disagree with the notion that drivers of heavy vehicles should be banned from using the hand phone. My argument is on the basis that drivers of heavy vehicles should not be deprived the right to communicate, especially with a job that is greatly time-consuming. Secondly, emergencies and whatnot are unforeseeable occurrences and should be taken as an exception to the said policy. Also, if hand phones are perceived to be distracting, the same can be said for radios. Should they be banned as well? This essay will serve to criticize and elaborate on the aforementioned points of argument.
It is common knowledge that drivers of heavy vehicles spend a considerable amount of time at work. Not only do they work almost 12 hours per day, but on occasion, especially during overtime and peak seasons, they work up to 20 hours per day. While the latter is seen as an extreme work schedule, it can hardly be helped since these drivers earn 'by the journey'. Meaning to say that, they will only be paid only for each successful journey they complete. Naturally, as more journeys are make, more time is inevitably required. Which brings us to the argument that the said drivers should not be restricted from the right to communicate in view of their time-consuming schedule. Heavy vehicle drivers, like any other employee, should be allowed to make and receive phone calls from their family members, friends and whatnot as it is the only way to keep in touch with current domestic affairs given a stressful and hectic lifestyle. To be deprived of the right to do so, is in my opinion, a breach of a fundamental human right. Furthermore, why should only drivers of heavy vehicles be banned from using the phone when drivers of normal vehicles are equally prone to these dangers?
Not all phone calls received are trivial issues. What about cases of emergencies? Should the driver not receive these calls even if it pertains to the life-and-death of someone they know? While it may be argued that these calls should be received during break times, the simple fact of the matter is that, emergencies cannot be planned; they are spontaneous and unprepared. To ban the use of phones despite an urgent matter is again very extreme and goes against civil liberties.
Thirdly, if the use of hand phones is seen as distracting and leads to road accidents, the same can be said for listening to radios. While it is not as distracting as using a hand phone, considering that it is a two-way process when you converse, it can be argued that listening to the radio is just as distracting, if not provocative. Consider this: a radio talk-show that touches on very sensitive issues, or even a sentimental song that makes you reminisce the past? Aren't these incidents equally as distracting as using a phone?
Finally, a point to consider, how would these crimes be enforced or evidenced? The article mentioned a phone number, stuck behind the heavy vehicle, which is used to report drivers who use the phone. But again, how would an prospective complainer, without a pen and paper, record essential details like the complain number, as well as, the number plate of the heavy vehicle without the use of a handphone? Furthermore, how will evidence be obtained and documented, unless there was a camera or a voice recorder inside the vehicle?
The policy is full of loopholes and should be further evaluated and researched. In the mean time, drivers of heavy vehicles should be allowed to use their phone in light of the argument presented above.
It is common knowledge that drivers of heavy vehicles spend a considerable amount of time at work. Not only do they work almost 12 hours per day, but on occasion, especially during overtime and peak seasons, they work up to 20 hours per day. While the latter is seen as an extreme work schedule, it can hardly be helped since these drivers earn 'by the journey'. Meaning to say that, they will only be paid only for each successful journey they complete. Naturally, as more journeys are make, more time is inevitably required. Which brings us to the argument that the said drivers should not be restricted from the right to communicate in view of their time-consuming schedule. Heavy vehicle drivers, like any other employee, should be allowed to make and receive phone calls from their family members, friends and whatnot as it is the only way to keep in touch with current domestic affairs given a stressful and hectic lifestyle. To be deprived of the right to do so, is in my opinion, a breach of a fundamental human right. Furthermore, why should only drivers of heavy vehicles be banned from using the phone when drivers of normal vehicles are equally prone to these dangers?
Not all phone calls received are trivial issues. What about cases of emergencies? Should the driver not receive these calls even if it pertains to the life-and-death of someone they know? While it may be argued that these calls should be received during break times, the simple fact of the matter is that, emergencies cannot be planned; they are spontaneous and unprepared. To ban the use of phones despite an urgent matter is again very extreme and goes against civil liberties.
Thirdly, if the use of hand phones is seen as distracting and leads to road accidents, the same can be said for listening to radios. While it is not as distracting as using a hand phone, considering that it is a two-way process when you converse, it can be argued that listening to the radio is just as distracting, if not provocative. Consider this: a radio talk-show that touches on very sensitive issues, or even a sentimental song that makes you reminisce the past? Aren't these incidents equally as distracting as using a phone?
Finally, a point to consider, how would these crimes be enforced or evidenced? The article mentioned a phone number, stuck behind the heavy vehicle, which is used to report drivers who use the phone. But again, how would an prospective complainer, without a pen and paper, record essential details like the complain number, as well as, the number plate of the heavy vehicle without the use of a handphone? Furthermore, how will evidence be obtained and documented, unless there was a camera or a voice recorder inside the vehicle?
The policy is full of loopholes and should be further evaluated and researched. In the mean time, drivers of heavy vehicles should be allowed to use their phone in light of the argument presented above.
