The principle is excellent, and much needed in a region where drivers blatantly ignore not only the law but the safety of themselves and, more critically, innocent others that suffer because of their lawlessness. The question is, why do authorities not cancel licences due to illegal phone use rather than wait for the accident to happen?
However, if implemented, the jamming should be limited to the driver because practically there are times where passengers need to and can communicate externally while the vehicle is in motion. For example, looking for directions (where a passenger is a navigator) or in an emergency. Leisure use bu passengers should also be considered as reasonable.
I do not know if targeted (driver only) jamming is technically possible, but a total vehicle jamming does not make practical sense. As usual the GCC goes from zero to 100 when it creates new laws.
The principle is excellent, and much needed in a region where drivers blatantly ignore not only the law but the safety of themselves and, more critically, innocent others that suffer because of their lawlessness. The question is, why do authorities not cancel licences due to illegal phone use rather than wait for the accident to happen?
However, if implemented, the jamming should be limited to the driver because practically there are times where passengers need to and can communicate externally while the vehicle is in motion. For example, looking for directions (where a passenger is a navigator) or in an emergency. Leisure use bu passengers should also be considered as reasonable.
I do not know if targeted (driver only) jamming is technically possible, but a total vehicle jamming does not make practical sense. As usual the GCC goes from zero to 100 when it creates new laws.