Q Should all mobile phone use by drivers be banned? I refer to the letter on this topic by Peter Robertson, which appeared in your column on Thursday. I agree that the use of hand-held mobile phones should be banned while driving, but can we seriously justify an objection to the use of hands-free devices? In particular, I note the comment by Mr Robertson that it is the 'concentration' on the phone conversation that holds the bigger danger and not the physical handling of the phone. I'm not at all sure that I agree with his stance. What about a driver holding a conversation with a passenger or looking at a shop window as he drives past, or unpacking and lighting a cigarette or whatever? There are many distractions to driving that can lead to serious accidents, and holding a conversation using a hands-free devices is just one of these. It is of the utmost importance that drivers always remember to drive with due care and attention. With this in mind it is unlikely that a conscientious driver would use a mobile phone while driving. Unfortunately, many drivers drive without much thought for others or for the need for appropriate safety margins (e.g. respect for pedestrians, safe distance from other vehicles, safe speed, safe lane changing, obeying traffic regulations, and so forth). Iain Seymour-Hart, Chai Wan I was interested in Peter Robertson's letter and I too am a firm believer that it is extremely dangerous to drive a vehicle while talking on a hand-held mobile phone. Every day I see drivers engaged in animated conversations on their hand-held phones while driving. I have the utmost respect for the police but am frustrated by their apparent blindness to things like drivers talking on their hand-held phones and to jaywalkers. I have to admit that I myself am a habitual jaywalker. Not that long ago, I was half-way across Canton Road, walking against the red light, when to my horror I noticed two police officers standing in my path on the opposite kerb. I even had to excuse myself to get past them, but did so completely unchallenged. And a week ago, I was waiting at the pedestrian crossing outside the Yau Ma Tei MTR station in Nathan Road when a pedestrian crossed the road against the red light and in the face of approaching traffic. Another pedestrian dragging a trolley followed his lead - totally oblivious to the situation - and caused a KMB bus to brake and a taxi to swerve around him. Perhaps if our police were more vigilant or more willing to enforce the law, then the roads would be safer for all. And perhaps I would even curb my own jaywalking. Tony Cook, Hunghom On other matters... I write in response to the article in 'Kevin Sinclair's Hong Kong' published on February 15, with regard to issues concerning the Town Planning Board (TPB). On the disclosure of the identity of an applicant for planning permission, I would like to explain that before the commencement of the Town Planning (Amendment) Ordinance 2004, on June 10, 2005, there was no express provision for publication of planning applications for public comments under the Town Planning Ordinance. For an application submitted under the pre-amended Ordinance, the TPB secretariat is not in a position to disclose the name of an applicant or its agent to a third party without their consent. To enhance the openness and transparency of the planning system, new provisions are included in the amended ordinance to allow us to do so. However, such provisions do not apply retrospectively. As the Sha Kok Mei and Stanley cases quoted in the article were submitted before the amended ordinance, it is not legally proper for the identity of the applicants to be disclosed without their consent. In general, applicants cannot ignore the planning conditions imposed by the TPB when implementing the schemes. In the Sha Kok Mei case, if the applicant fails to comply with the approval conditions, the development may not be able to obtain the necessary approvals from the concerned government departments at the building plans submission and lease modification stages. Regarding the activities spotted on the site, I understand that the concerned government departments have carried out joint site visits and will take appropriate measures against any illegal activities. I also learned that the Planning Department has written to the applicant's agent reminding them of the need to comply with the conditions stipulated in the planning permission. Ophelia Y. S. Wong, secretary, Town Planning Board
