JurnalPost.com - Stopping at a red light is often seen as an opportunity to take a brief break from driving. However, for some motorists, this time is used to check their phones, reply to WhatsApp messages, view notifications, or simply scroll through social media.
Scenes like this are easily found at various intersections, including in South Tangerang, Jakarta, and other major cities. When asked why they use their phones, some drivers may assume the activity is harmless because the vehicle is stationary.
This assumption raises an interesting question from a legal standpoint. Can someone using a phone while stopped at a red light be considered in violation of traffic rules? Or does the prohibition only apply when the vehicle is in motion?
As a law student, I view this issue as more complex than simply determining whether a vehicle is moving or stationary. There are aspects of legal interpretation, the obligation to maintain concentration, legal certainty, and the safety of road users that must be considered.
What Does the Law Say About Mobile Phone Use?
The use of mobile phones while driving is related to the provisions of Article 106 paragraph (1) of Law Number 22 of 2009 concerning Road Traffic and Transportation (UU LLAJ).
The article requires every person driving a motorized vehicle on the road to drive reasonably and with full concentration.
Meanwhile, Article 283 of the UU LLAJ stipulates criminal penalties for drivers who engage in other activities or are in a state that results in impaired concentration while driving.
The penalty is imprisonment for a maximum of three months or a fine of up to Rp750,000.
Interestingly, the provisions in the body of Article 106 paragraph (1) do not specifically mention the use of mobile phones. However, the explanation of the article includes the use of telephones as one of the activities that can distract a driver.
The issue of mobile phone use was even tested at the Constitutional Court through Decision Number 23/PUU-XVI/2018 which was decided on 30 January 2019.
The petition, among other things, questioned the use of smartphones for navigation based on Global Positioning System (GPS). In its decision, the Constitutional Court rejected the petitioners' request in its entirety.
The Court emphasized the importance of full concentration when driving a vehicle. The use of navigation features on a phone is not automatically exempted if the way it is operated distracts the driver.
Nevertheless, there are still interesting questions to study, especially regarding the use of phones when a vehicle is temporarily stopped because the traffic light is red.
Stopped at a Red Light: Is It Still Considered Driving?
In understanding this issue, there are two approaches to interpretation that can be used.
The first approach is a narrow interpretation. From this perspective, driving is understood as the activity of operating a vehicle that is in motion. When the vehicle is stopped, an argument arises that the driver is not performing the activity of driving in the true sense.
This approach is also related to the principle of caution in applying criminal law. An act should not simply be declared a criminal offense if the elements of the violation are not met.
Meanwhile, the second approach views driving as a continuous series of traffic activities.
In this view, stopping at a red light does not mean that someone has ended their driving activity. The driver is still on the road, remains in control of their vehicle, and has an obligation to pay attention to the situation around them.
When the light turns green, the driver must immediately respond to traffic conditions safely.
In my opinion, the second approach is more in line with the purpose of traffic safety regulations. The obligation to concentrate should not be understood as only applying when the vehicle's wheels are turning.
However, this does not mean that every touch of a phone automatically meets the elements of a criminal violation. The situation, the form of activity, and the potential for distraction must still be considered proportionally.
Lessons from the Fatal Accident in Perawang, Siak
The importance of concentration while driving can be seen from the traffic accident that occurred on Jalan Raya KM 10, Kampung Perawang Barat, Tualang District, Siak Regency, Riau, on Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
The accident involved a Toyota Land Cruiser and three motorcycles coming from the opposite direction.
As a result of the incident, a 16-year-old student died, while four others were injured.
Based on reports citing the statement of the Head of Traffic Unit of Siak Police, AKP Siswoyo, the driver of the Toyota Land Cruiser with the initials DK (49) allegedly lost concentration due to using a mobile phone while driving.
The police also stated that the driver's urine test results were negative.
After examining witnesses, processing the crime scene, and conducting a case expose on 31 October 2026, DK was named a suspect and detained for investigation purposes.
He is charged under Article 310 paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of the UU LLAJ, with a maximum penalty of six years in prison.
It should be emphasized that information regarding the cause of the accident is still part of the investigation process. Being named a suspect is not the same as proving guilt based on a court decision.
The presumption of innocence must still be respected until there is a court decision that has permanent legal force.
This event also cannot be directly equated with using a phone when a vehicle is stopped at a red light. This is because the accident in Perawang occurred while the vehicle was moving.
However, the event provides an illustration of the importance of maintaining concentration and the magnitude of the consequences that can arise when a driver's attention is diverted.
Not All Mobile Phone Activities Carry the Same Risk
In my view, there is a difference between phone use that clearly diverts attention and brief interactions that do not significantly reduce alertness.
Replying to long messages, watching videos, playing games, or scrolling through social media are activities that require visual and mental attention.
When done while stopped at an intersection, these activities have the potential to cause the driver to lose focus on changes in traffic lights, other vehicles, or pedestrians.
On the other hand, there are situations where a driver only wants to confirm their route through navigation.
Nevertheless, the use of navigation cannot be considered always safe or automatically free from legal provisions.
The safest way is to set the route before the trip begins or pull over in a permitted area if further phone operation is required.
From a legal perspective, I argue that law enforcement needs to consider the nature of the act and whether the elements of the violation are met, rather than solely based on physical contact between the driver's hand and the phone.
Legal Certainty and the Importance of Proportional Interpretation
One of the important issues in this discussion is how the phrase "reasonable and full concentration" is applied consistently.
In criminal law, there is the principle of lex certa, which is a principle that requires criminal provisions to be formulated clearly so that the public can know which acts are prohibited.
Formulations that provide room for broad interpretation have the potential to cause differences in application in the field if not supported by adequate guidelines.
For example, there are drivers who use phones to watch videos when stopped at a red light. In another situation, there are drivers who only look at directions without engaging in long interactions.
Both conditions certainly have different characteristics, even though they both involve the use of electronic devices.
Therefore, in my opinion, more detailed law enforcement guidelines are needed to help officers assess the form of distraction and ensure that the application of the rules is proportional.
These guidelines are important so that the goal of traffic safety is achieved without ignoring the principles of legal certainty and the protection of public rights.
When Negligence Leads to Criminal Liability
The accident case in Perawang also shows the difference between violating the obligation to concentrate and criminal liability due to a traffic accident.
Article 283 of the UU LLAJ regulates sanctions for acts that disrupt driving concentration. Meanwhile, Article 310 regulates criminal liability for accidents caused by negligence that result in losses, injuries, or death.
In accident cases, investigators and judges need to assess the element of negligence and the causal relationship between the driver's actions and the resulting consequences.
If there is an allegation that the driver was using a phone, it must be assessed based on valid evidence, not just assumptions.
Witness statements, crime scene processing results, camera recordings, and digital examinations if necessary can help explain the sequence of events.
The same applies if there is an allegation of fatigue or momentary sleep (microsleep). Each factor must be examined based on evidence to determine whether it truly has a relationship with the accident.
In my opinion, the law enforcement process must also pay balanced attention to the rights of the suspect and the rights of the victim.
The suspect has the right to a fair trial process, while the victim and their family have the right to protection, justice, and the fulfillment of rights in accordance with legal provisions.
Law Enforcement Is Not Enough with Just Tickets
The use of mobile phones while driving is an issue that cannot be solved only by increasing the number of enforcement actions.
Police officers may face limitations in proving a driver's activity, especially if they do not see the action directly.
The use of electronic traffic cameras or Electronic Traffic Law Enforcement (ETLE) also has technical limitations in detecting all activities inside a vehicle.
Therefore, education regarding traffic safety needs to receive as much attention as law enforcement.
Drivers must understand that attention to road conditions is part of their responsibility, including when the vehicle is temporarily stopped at an intersection.
A culture of orderly traffic will not be formed just because the public is afraid of sanctions. The awareness to protect oneself and others must be the basis for driving behavior.
A Red Light Is Not a Time to Lose Concentration
Ultimately, in my opinion, using a phone while stopped at a red light can cause legal issues if the activity distracts the driver and meets the elements of a violation as regulated in the UU LLAJ.
The stopping of a vehicle due to a red light does not automatically end the driver's obligation to maintain alertness.
However, law enforcement must also be carried out carefully. Not every touch of a phone can be immediately considered a criminal act without assessing the circumstances and legal elements.
Certainty of norms, uniformity of enforcement, and safety education are three important things that must go hand in hand.
The accident in Perawang serves as a reminder that negligence in driving can have very serious consequences.
As a law student, I believe that traffic safety should not be understood only as an obligation to avoid fines or punishment.
More than that, safety is a form of legal and moral responsibility toward the lives of others.
A red light does provide an opportunity for a vehicle to stop. However, that does not mean the driver's attention to safety can also stop.
References:
Law Number 22 of 2009 concerning Road Traffic and Transportation, specifically Article 106 paragraph (1), Article 283, and Article 310.
Constitutional Court Decision Number 23/PUU-XVI/2018, dated 30 January 2019, concerning the judicial review of the Explanation of Article 106 paragraph (1) and Article 283 of the UU LLAJ.
National Police Traffic Corps, "The Danger of Using a Phone While Driving, Can Trigger Microsleep and Accidents", 17 May 2026.
Riau Online, reporting on the alleged use of a phone in the Land Cruiser accident in Perawang, 30 October–3 November 2026.
DetikNews, "Fatal Accident in Siak, Land Cruiser Driver Named Suspect and Detained", 2 November 2026.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response