Home » Road Safety (Page 30)
Category Archives: Road Safety
“Pwede na yan” bikeways?
The recent clamor for bicycle facilities have led to several initiatives in Metro Manila and other Philippines cities (most notable recently is Iloilo) to support the demand for cycling facilities. While Marikina City already has a network of off-street bikeways segregated from motorised traffic, there are few other examples of such facilities elsewhere. The more recent initiatives in Metro Manila involved the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) establishing bikeways in several areas along major roads in the metropolis. I say establish because the MMDA did not construct new bikeways like the ones in Marikina or Iloilo. What the agency did was to designate sidewalks and other existing paths for cycling by painting these over. Unfortunately, these so-called bikeways did not take into consideration the needs of pedestrians with whom cyclists must share this limited space. And so few people use them despite a high profile launch that brought together government officials and NGOs including cycling and mobility advocates and enthusiasts. I guess the big test was really not whether advocates and enthusiasts would really use the bikeways (Don’t count on the officials to use them. They have chauffeur-driven vehicles.). Would the regular commuter use them instead of the roads, despite the risk or dangers posed by motor vehicles?
Commuters waiting for a bus ride along EDSA with suspended bicycle racks behind them. The sidewalks along EDSA have been painted red, designating them for bicycle use. The big question now is how cyclists will interact with pedestrians given the very limited space they should be sharing.
Bicycles hanging on racks attached to the perimeter wall of an exclusive subdivision along EDSA.
Cyclist using the curb side lane of EDSA – these people run the risk of being sideswiped by buses operating along the yellow (bus) lanes of this busy thoroughfare. It is quite obvious in the photo that there is no space on the sidewalks to accommodate cyclists and even pedestrians. Column for the MRT-3 stations are right on the sidewalks and makes one wonder how this flawed design was approved in the first place. MMDA enforcers usually appear as if they are only bystanders and seem to be generally helpless when it comes to managing traffic.
Workers cycling back to their homes after a day’s work. Many people have opted to take bicycles for their daily commutes even if they have to travel long distances in order to save money that would otherwise be paid as fares for buses, jeepneys, UV Express or tricycles. Note that the cyclists use the outermost lane of the road as the sidewalks pose many obstacles including pedestrians as shown in the photo. Some cyclists though want more than a share of the sidewalk or a lane of the road for their use regarding pedestrians and motor vehicles as nuisance for them. Surely, some pedestrians also regard cyclists as nuisance to walking and would prefer to have the sidewalks for themselves.
Cycling is in a way an emancipation from motorized transport commutes, and savings translate to money they could allocate for other needs of their families. While there are raw data for family expenditures from census surveys, there are few studies and publications focused on transport. It would be interesting to see how much a typical Filipino family spends for transport in absolute terms as well as a percentage of their total incomes. Such information would be essential for understanding the needs of travelers, especially for daily commutes for work and school (other trips include those for purposes of shopping, recreational, social and others). Long commutes are associated with higher expenses (e.g., in terms of fares or fuel costs) and reducing such costs through shorter commutes should free up money for necessities like food, housing and clothing. Ultimately, this would help solve issues relating to poverty and health, which can easily be related to commuting behavior and characteristics.
It is in that context that transport systems should be planned and implemented carefully along with the housing developments. This underlines the essence of the relationship between transport and land use that has been the topic of discussions for quite some time now that apparently, a lot of people in this country, especially officials and the private sector have chosen to ignore or apply selectively (i.e., according to their own advantage and not really for the general welfare of the public). A transport system is not cycling alone, or roads or railways alone. It is, by definition, a network, a set of interacting, integrated elements and each of these components of the system are essential for it to function well. It is the interaction and integration that are the key elements that we often forget as we advocate one transport mode over others as if they are independent from each other. They are not and we should complement rather than compete in our advocacies for transport so we can finally achieve an efficient, effective system for everyone.
–
Traffic mayhem in Antipolo
I had written earlier about traffic management in Antipolo City. My daily commute allows me to observe transport and traffic in this pilgrimage city east of Metro Manila. For a highly urbanised city (HUC), its traffic management is quite rural or provincial at best with enforcers trying to do their thing based more on gut feel rather than sound knowledge of traffic principles. Intersection traffic management, for example, needs a lot of improvement as enforcers are pre-disposed to apply the buhos approach to dissipating queues that actually lead to longer queues, tremendous delays to travellers, and therefore low levels of service (LOS) at the intersections. The signalised Masinag Junction is probably one of the worst intersections outside of Metro Manila with queues along the south approach (Sumulong Highway from Antipolo) stretching to Mambugan (about 2 km) even on a Saturday. Along the east approach (Marcos Highway from Cogeo) the queues can stretch all the way to Cherry Foodarama supermarket (about 1 km).
Masinag, of course, is a big intersection with heavy traffic due its being the junction for 2 major highways (Marcos and Sumulong) that collect much of traffic from Rizal and Marikina bound for the general direction of Quezon City and Manila. Marcos Highway is the main alternative corridor to Ortigas Avenue, which is itself a very congested road, between the eastern towns and Metro Manila. There are many other problematic intersections in the city, which are mostly unsignalized where traffic is managed manually by enforcers. I’m sure there are some minor intersections that are manageable at most times of the day and may not actually require enforcers if motorists give way to each other. However, there are those intersections that require stricter and more systematic (if not scientific) methods to manage traffic. For example, along roads leading to the Antipolo cathedral where there are a lot of people posing as parking attendants going over to aggressively engage motorists at the intersection. Enforcers routinely turn a blind eye to these people who pose as safety risks along the roads.
Tricycles occupying the outermost lane along Ortigas Ave. Ext. and Oliveros Street at the junction with Sumulong Memorial Circle and just across from the Rizal Provincial Capitol – to exacerbate the situation, jeepneys and UV Express vehicles usually stop in the middle of the road to load/unload passengers. Such informal terminals should not be allowed in these areas considering it is a chokepoint for traffic along these busy roads. So far, enforcers around the capitol seem oblivious to the mayhem caused by these terminals and turn a blind eye to the disruptive manoeuvres of tricycles in the area.
Dangerous intersection along Sumulong Highway – there is road at the right (where a tricycle is coming from) that is used by trucks and other vehicles coming from Marcos Highway. Olalia Road connects to Marcos Highway and there are many residential subdivisions along this road that generate the traffic to and from Marcos and Sumulong Highways.
More on Antipolo traffic soon!
–
On road safety and courtesy
I spotted what apparently was a father and daughter riding tandem on a foldable bicycle along Katipunan and heading to the University of the Philippines campus in Diliman. Both were dressed quite appropriately for the weather and for cycling. It was good to see that they both at least have their helmets on; though ideally it would have been better if they wore elbow and knee pads and “reflective” clothing for them to be easily seen on the road.
Waiting for a chance to cross – the cyclist was waiting for a chance to cross Katipunan towards the University of the Philippines’ Magsaysay gate. True to form, motorists along Katipunan’s southbound directions do not slow down to allow for others to make a left turn to UP. Motorists bound for the university have to inch their way and create gaps for themselves to cross. Often, one has to rely on the Katipunan jeepneys whose drivers are braver than others in forcing their way to be able to cross the road. The father and daughter tandem were able to cross safely, taking advantage of a screen of motor vehicles (including ours) that made a left turn to enter UP.
I have observed that jeepney and truck drivers are more likely to stop and give way than private car drivers and motorcyclists. Motorists generally don’t give way to others even in heavy traffic, often blocking intersections just because the green light is still on for them. Many do not give way to pedestrians and do not know how to share road space with cyclists. Worse are motorcyclists who use sidewalks and bully pedestrians to give way to them! Meanwhile, you have pedestrians who throw all caution to the wind to cross anywhere and anytime along roads like Commonwealth, commuters occupying the carriageway as they wait for their rides, and cyclists hogging the middle of the road when there are actually lanes designated for them. These are manifestations of how poorly people are trained for road use and often an indictment of a failed licensing system as well as traffic education in general.
Pedalling along – after successfully crossing Katipunan, the father and daughter tandem finally enters the more friendly roads of the UP campus. UP Diliman already has bicycle lanes along its academic oval and the community is generally aware of the rights of pedestrians and cyclists as road users. I would like to think that people who have a connection with the University and those who are also advocates of walking, cycling and road safety respect each other’s rights. But as always there will be those irresponsible people (e.g., pasaway, barumbado, etc.) who will disregard traffic rules and put lives in danger with their behaviour on the road.
In many cases these days, we just need a little common sense and perhaps more of courtesy to make travel safer and better for everyone. Everybody needs to learn and practice respect for each other’s rights on the road and courtesy extends to everyone so we can have order in our streets. It doesn’t take a genius (or experts, international or local) to point out things that are basically common sense and require common courtesy if not decency.
–
Risky business with motorcycling
I spotted what appeared to be a family of four riding the same motorcycle as I was traveling to work this morning. While they were traveling slowly, likely to be careful considering there were 4 riders, I could’t help but imagine (not really wonder) what was going on in the minds of the adults here. The children were obviously oblivious to the dangerous situation and I even saw one child smiling and apparently enjoying the ride. I am sure that the father is trying his best to be careful as he is surely aware that a mistake would likely doom his entire family.
A family of 4 with one child (the younger one) in front and another child sandwiched between the adults riding a single motorcycle. The children didn’t even have helmets so if an untoward incident happens, there is a very high likelihood that the children will be killed in a crash.
These are common sights in Metro Manila and elsewhere in the country. Its worse in other places where there’s weak enforcement of road safety laws including the helmet law and the limitation in the number of passengers (yes, there is a law against passenger overloading for vehicles). I was actually wondering how these people in the photo were able to evade MMDA and LGU enforcers along major roads. And to think that there are many checkpoints to inspect those “riding in tandem.” Clearly, this is a violation of existing regulations and the only way to discourage such practices and effect behaviour change is for authorities to clamp down on such risky situations, even forcing them to discontinue travel in addition to issuing a ticket and fine for the violation. Are we really serious in promoting road safety and ensuring safety for everyone? If so, why the lax enforcement when it is perhaps, and arguably, the most important element in order to influence people’s mindsets regarding road safety.
–
Public transport fare hikes
Bus and jeepney groups often demand for an increase in the fares every time there is an increase in the prices of fuel. The latest one is mentioned in this article via Rappler, where a jeepney group is to hold a protest caravan as they seek a discount on diesel for all public utility vehicles. The reaction from readers is an overwhelming “Annoyed.” And rightly so because while these protests appear to be noble and are often linked by jeepney groups to petitions for fare hike increases (i.e., asking for fare increases if they cannot be given fuel or petroleum product discounts), closer scrutiny of operating costs will reveal flaws in their arguments for fare hikes and discounts. These same flaws also reveal why government agencies charged with public transport franchising and regulation (i.e., DOTC and LTFRB) should have the data and tools for a fair assessment of fares (pun intended).
Data from field surveys conducted quite recently (NCTS, 2012) show us that jeepneys typically average around 3 to 4 km/L on diesel fuel. This is a very low value that is comparable to the income from passengers for one trip over a distance of say 4 km. A fully-loaded jeepney with an average of 20 passengers (9 on each bench plus 2 beside the driver) operating a 4-km route will 160 pesos. However, there are limited reliable information or data on other costs such as maintenance costs and other items including “boundary” and “dispatching.” The boundary is basically a rental fee for the use of the vehicle while jeepney groups charge a fee for dispatching vehicles from the terminal or stop. In a day’s operation, such costs could easily accumulate into a significant total that would eat up a day’s income, usually leaving the driver with just enough to bring home to his family.
This brings us back to the argument against transport being treated as livelihood rather than a service. Many operators or owners of public utility vehicles, whether they have one or more units, tend to scrimp on the maintenance of their vehicles. Poor maintenance manifests in the form of smoke-belching and frequent breakdowns. While smoke-belching contributes to the deterioration of the environment and health costs, breakdowns often lead to road crashes (e.g., tires flying off, problems with brakes, etc.) like the recent bus crash in the Mountain Province where faulty breaks were blamed for the crash.
Jeepney groups often raise issues on the plight of small operators who are usually the drivers of the jeepneys themselves. Many of these people should not even be operating or driving jeepneys in the first place because safe and efficient service is not their priority. Service is second only to the desire to generate income, to earn a living, which makes them drive the way they currently do (i.e., recklessly) and improperly and haphazardly maintain their vehicles. There is seldom serious talk and little done to protect the interests of people who take public transport. These are the same people who are often shortchanged with the poor quality of public transport in our cities and have long suffered for this. Let us hope that the LTFRB will be guided as they decide on this matter of fares and furthermore for the agency to study the state of road public transport franchising in order to weed out people and groups who do not deserve to be operators. I believe there is more than enough data or evidence against such operators if the LTFRB truly wants to reform the system.
–
Transport and traffic purgatory, paradise and inferno
A lot of people have been referring to the traffic congestion and other derivative issues that will be the result of the construction of several transport projects around Metro Manila as “traffic armageddon.” Some friend have appropriately (I think) referred to it more as “car-mageddon.” This seems to be the case since it is perceived to have the most impact on car users than public transport users, cyclists or pedestrians. This is far from the truth as there are more people taking public transport, cycling or walking than those driving their own cars. In fact, estimates for Metro Manila indicate that 70-80% of travelers take public transport while 20-30% take private vehicles. These mode splits do not include bicycles or walking, which obviously will further decrease private car shares.
I would rather refer to this period of construction as a sort of “purgatory” though it has nothing to do with the cleansing that’s associated with it. There is still the suffering involved while improvements are being implemented. But, most importantly, there is hope at the end of this process. This “hope” is not necessarily the “light at the end of a dark tunnel” kind of thing as surely population and the number of vehicles will surely increase over time even as the transport projects are being implemented. By the time these are completed, there are sure to be more people, more vehicles, as well as more of other developments that will put our transport system to a stress test. We can only hope that the designs of these infrastructure we are building now are based on honest to goodness trip or traffic forecasts. Otherwise, we’ll end up with congested or saturated systems by the time they start operating.
Unfortunately, most projects mentioned and those we know have the green light and would likely be proceeding with construction in the near future are basically road projects. It’s ironic considering that what Metro Manila urgently, and maybe desperately, needs now are public transport systems including the much delayed MRT 7, LRT 2 Extension and LRT 1 Extension. The proposals for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) seem to be in a limbo, too, despite extensive studies and surveys to support BRT along corridors such as Ortigas Avenue and Circumferential Road 5. These are blamed on institutional and legal impediments including allegations of shortcomings among officials of agencies responsible for these infrastructure.
I am aware of an initiative led by an environmental lawyer seeking to effect the redistribution of road space in favor of public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians. I think such actions are useful from the perspective of getting the attention necessary to push government and private sector players to have a sense of urgency not just in words but also in actions in as far as transport infrastructure programs and projects are concerned. We are already lagging behind our ASEAN neighbors with regards to infrastructure and at this pace, it is likely that less developed countries like Cambodia and Myanmar might just overtake us in the foreseeable future. From another perspective, it is hard to push for sharing the road when people really don’t have better options for commuting. Walking and cycling are not for everyone and many people have turned to the motorcycle to solve their transport woes. In the latter case, motorcycles are perceived as a vehicle that’s fuel efficient and allows the users to zip through congested streets often at high risks of being involved in a crash or spill.
We can only achieve “paradise” in our highly urbanized cities if we build these mass transit systems along with the pedestrian and cycling facilities that will complement each other. Those for whom car travel is a necessity would also benefit from reduced road congestion so it will eventually (hopefully) play out well for most people. Meanwhile, we would have to endure transport and traffic hell (some more and longer than others) as the government and private sector embark on this round of infrastructure projects implementation. It helps to look back at our experiences with the last major batch of projects in the latter part of the 1990’s when the number coding scheme was first implemented. At the time, it was implemented as a temporary measure to alleviate congestion while projects where being implemented. What was a temporary measure is now still being implemented along with a truck ban that has also been evolving the past years with the latest being the one implemented by the City of Manila starting last February 24. Will these vehicle restraint schemes be modified to cope with the traffic congestion expected from projects like the Skyway connector? Will these be relaxed or removed after all these projects have been completed? Your guess is as good as mine.
–
Preventable tragedies
Last Friday, a provincial bus plunged into a ravine somewhere in the Mountain Province. The bus rolled several times before coming to a stop, instantly killing 14 people. Among the fatalities in this crash is a popular comedian/media personality who went by the name Tado and part of a group doing civic work in the area. Foreign visitors were also killed in the crash, leaving many to wonder if perhaps the Department of Tourism (DOT) should also get into the act as it is in the interest of the department to also establish that “It’s safer in the Philippines!” as part of its “It’s more fun in the Philippines!” tagline.
According to initial reports, the driver lost control due to defective brakes but later one report suggested that the driver had dozed off and awoke too late to bring the bus back in control. The slope of the road was downwards and there was significant curvature. This combination is definitely a challenging one for most drivers, even professionals who, like the bus driver, would probably have encountered such combinations of slope and curvature many times, even on a daily basis along mountain routes. One has to be awake and focused on maneuvering a vehicle for such sections. It didn’t help that probably, and I base this on photos of the section I’ve seen online, the road’s barriers were not up to standard in as far as stopping large vehicles like the bus from falling off and into the ravine.
These are preventable incidents, preventable tragedies that occur on a daily basis around the country. It is clear to many that the LTFRB needs to address these problems by taking steps to insure that public transport vehicles such as provincial buses are properly maintained and drivers are fit and in the best condition to drive these vehicles. To do that, they have to be proactive in evaluating bus, jeepney, UV express, and taxi and other franchises under them. These evaluations should delve into involvements in road crashes as well as the frequencies and types of traffic violations drivers have been involved in. Such records of crashes and violations should form part of a set of criteria to suspend and ultimately revoke franchises of public transport entities.
The LTO also has a responsibility here because they are the agency in-charge of licensing drivers. They should make sure that those applying for professional licenses are indeed qualified and not just to drive any vehicle. Therefore, perhaps there is a need to have different types of licenses for different types of professional drivers. Public utility vehicles differ in size and maneuverability so a different skill set and experience is required for buses compared with taxis. Another type of license should apply for those seeking to drive trucks as well as heavy equipment such as payloaders and bulldozers. The TESDA has certification programs for these that are sought out by people who want to drive professionally abroad. These should also be made as requirements for those seeking to drive professionally here. These would ensure that drivers will be qualified and competent as they are responsible for lives and property.
It is also clear that the DPWH and local authorities in-charge of road safety along roads should look into how to make travel safer by investing more into safety devices such as barriers. Crash or accident prone sections can be identified and sturdier barriers designed to keep vehicles on the road should be constructed/installed in order to prevent such types of fatal crashes (i.e., barriers would not prevent head-on collisions, etc.). That is why the DPWH and local governments need to have capacity and capability to assess road safety along national and local roads. These actions address vulnerabilities. These actions save lives.
What can you do to help in this effort? You don’t have to be part of an organized group or a lobbyist to be involved in promoting road safety. You can be involved in simple ways. Be aware of your rights on the road and your being among those vulnerable to road crashes. I am sure you don’t want to be involved in a crash nor would you like a loved one to get injured or, God forbid, perish in a crash. If your bus, jeepney, UV express or taxi driver drives recklessly, be firm in reminding him of his responsibility. You may enjoy a fast ride but are you sure your destination isn’t the afterlife? Think about it. Act on it. Save lives!
–
In-vehicle tools for road safety
I recently came across a provincial bus operator who is promoting a device for limiting the speeds of vehicles. He states that all their buses are fitted with the device and together with an on-board camera and GPS, they are able to monitor their buses and ensure the safety and security of their passengers. It’s always good to know there are responsible and progressive bus operators like him. Unfortunately, his kind is a minority among many who appear to be after the proverbial quick buck rather than ensuring a high quality of service for travelers.
Devices limiting the speeds of vehicles are not new. These have been installed in many public transport and commercial vehicles like buses and trucks in order to regulate their speeds along highways and streets. Trucks from Japan are fitted with these devices and those second hand trucks being sold in the Philippines have these but are allegedly disabled by their new owners. They are not violating any laws here as there are no regulations requiring such devices to be installed in vehicles.
Tracking devices that include GPS are more recent technologies being used mainly by logistics companies to track their vehicles. These are particularly important for trucks laden with high value cargo or for delivery vans who schedules and routes need to be managed to ensure timely delivery of packages consigned to them. Data from these devices would allow for the assessment of driving speeds and behavior such as lane changing that can be used to determine if drivers are, for example, reckless. The same data can also be used to evaluate fuel efficiency.
Such devices also have research applications because data can be used to determine real-time traffic conditions. In fact, there have been probe car studies conducted in other countries such as Japan, Thailand and Indonesia where taxis were employed to gather traffic information along urban road networks (e.g., Tokyo, Bangkok, Jakarta). Similar experiments can be implemented for Philippine cities to derive traffic information that can be used to guide travelers regarding travel times and route planning.
Perhaps the DOTC through the LTO and the LTFRB, should look into the mandatory installation and use of these devices to regulate vehicle speeds for public and freight transport and also monitor driver behavior. Mandatory speed regulation devices as well as tracking systems have a high potential for weeding out reckless, irresponsible drivers that will ultimately lead to a reduction in road crashes that have resulted in serious injuries and loss of lives. Definitely, there will be objections or opposition to such a requirement but these devices can be justified given the clamor for safer transport and safer roads. After all, everyone of us are vulnerable road users where even the safest driver can be involved in crashes. It takes only one reckless driver or rider to cause a crash.
–
Clear message to transport service providers
The cancellation of the franchise of the Don Mariano Bus Transit last January 14, 2014 is a long overdue decision. I say this because there have been so many incidents of road crashes in the past involving public transportation that led to the deaths and serious injuries of a lot of people whether they are passengers, the drivers themselves, pedestrians or even innocent people who happen to be at the wrong place and the wrong time (i.e., when and where the crash occurred). The cancellation of the franchise sends a strong message to erring operators and drivers of public utility vehicles including those of buses, jeepneys, UV express and taxis that the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) is dead serious about enforcing franchise rules and regulations particularly in the light of road and public safety concerns. The decision is also a strong statement by the agency. One that says they have the balls to make game-changing decisions that is assumed to be intended for operators and drivers to take heed.
I had the opportunity to attend a few congressional hearings at the Batasan a few years ago that were convened by the Committee on Metro Manila Development. The main topics of those hearings were on public transportation. I recall that one hearing focused on the proposal to increase the penalties for traffic violations while others focused on policies being introduced by the MMDA (e.g., dispatching scheme, painting the bodies of buses with their plate numbers, RFID, etc.). In these hearings, the MMDA had been asked by the congressmen to present statistics on road traffic violations by public transport vehicles and they did present the numbers indicating also which bus companies were involved in the most crashes and which incurred the most violations. One question asked by a congressman was why, despite all the incidents and violations that bus companies were involved in, have no franchises been cancelled or revoked. The MMDA quickly and correctly replied that it is the LTFRB that has authority over the franchises. I do not recall how the LTFRB managed to answer the follow-up question trained on them but I don’t think anything close to a solution came out of those hearings. The transcript of these meetings and the data reported by the MMDA should be with the committee and, I presume, should be for public consumption given that these hearings were made in the interest of the general public.
Public transport as a form of “livelihood” should not be made an excuse for the poor quality of public transport services. A driver cannot drive like crazy, crash into other road users and claim that they were only trying to earn a living. Operators cannot scrimp on maintenance and spare parts costs (resulting in poorly maintained vehicles that are prone to mechanical failure and obviously violate emission regulations) just because they want to earn a larger profit. It is a card that is always put on play by public transport operators, drivers, conductors and their lawyers when interviewed, especially by TV reporters. One take on the news reports on TV is that those interviewed were nagpapaawa lang (acting for people to pity them or sympathize with them. Yet afterwards, once the suspension is lifted, these same drivers go back and drive as if nothing happened and still oblivious to the dangers they pose on others travelers. I have written about this in the past and share the opinion that we will get nowhere near the efficient and safe transport services we aspire to have unless we do away with the current practices of reckless driving and smoke-belching PUVs. And the improvement begins when the LTFRB starts canceling franchises of erring operators of public utility vehicles and the Land Transportation Office (LTO) starts revoking the licenses of irresponsible drivers.
Now, if we can only have the LTFRB cancel the franchises of erring jeepney, taxi and UV express operators, then that will send even clearer messages to all that government is really serious about road safety and public transport regulations. Included also are initiatives on truck operators and drivers who are also guilty of irresponsible driving. Perhaps the LTO should follow suit and be more aggressive in their part to rid our roads of erring private vehicle drivers and motorcycle riders? I think such actions are definitely what’s needed under the banner of “Matuwid na Daan” (literally “straight path” but also translates to “right or correct path”). In order to achieve “Matuwid na Daan,” we should also have “matuwid na pagmamaneho” (“responsible driving”).
–
Preventable road crashes and congestion
The driver of the Don Mariano Transit bus that plunged from the Skyway died last Monday after being confined to a hospital after the incident. To some, perhaps, the first thing that came to mind was that his passing meant one less reckless driver in our roads. The idea that streets are safer without him and his kind of drivers is not at all new nor is it considered unfair by many who have experienced or victimized by reckless driving by bus, jeepney, UV express, or taxi drivers or have encountered them in traffic. To be fair, included in this list are private car and truck drivers and motorcyclists who seem to think they had the roads to themselves and all other road users must adjust to their driving styles.
The thing is, most road crashes are preventable if only people drove more carefully. Discipline on our roads have been the subject of a lot of writings, news reports and documentaries, and nowadays even amateur videos uploaded on the net. The latter videos show how difficult (or terrifying) it is to drive in Philippine roads. In fact, I have a balikbayan friend who’s on vacation from the U.S. who says she screamed every time her father maneuvered their car in traffic as they drove to Makati. She seemed to have gotten used to the more discipline driving in Memphis that she forgot about how to drive in Manila streets.
One problem is that many professional drivers, those whose jobs are to drive vehicles like taxis, trucks, buses, jeepneys and UV Express, are not formally trained. I say many because few are certified by the government-run Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) or any school offering formal driving courses. Those who get certification are usually people who want to work abroad and need formal certification as a requirement by foreign firms or recruitment agencies.
Driving schools are generally for those seeking a non-professional licenses, i.e., those who want to drive their own cars. And from what we see when traveling along our roads, most private car drivers are also guilty of reckless driving. I have seen many who seem to think that they are stunt drivers, weaving in and out of traffic, frequently changing lanes and cutting the path of other motorists (many motorcycle riders are guilty of this, too). This is a systemic failure on the part of the Land Transportation Office (LTO), which is the agency in-charge of licensing drivers.
This crash involving a taxi and truck in Katipunan just across from the U.P. Town Center backed up traffic along C-5 as the two vehicles occupied 2 of the 3 southbound lanes of the road. From the looks of it, is seems the truck driver either lost control of his vehicle or made an error as he attempted to switch lanes.
Preventable, too, are many causes of traffic congestion such as minor road incidents and vehicle breakdowns. In the latter cases, it is the responsibility of vehicle owners whether they be private individuals or bus companies or logistics firms to properly maintain and operate their vehicles. As such, they are primarily to blame for most breakdowns. I say most, because there are instances when flat tires are caused by objects on the road. In many cases of breakdowns and other incidents, congestion results from these vehicles not being quickly removed from blocking the road. There is also the tendency for other drivers to be inquisitive (usyoso) so much so that they slow down unnecessarily and thereby contribute to the congestion.
This truck broke down just after entering the C-5 E. Rodriguez Flyover in Pasig City at around 5:30 AM. There are only 2 lanes on either the northbound or southbound direction so the blockage created a traffic jam early in the morning that stretched all the way to Lanuza at the time I passed by the area. What was expected by many as free flowing traffic that time of the day turned out to be an early traffic jam. I can just imagine the congestion afterwards when peak traffic started around 7:00 AM. The MMDA enforcers seemed helpless as they watch vehicles passing the truck.
In the coming year 2014, we are hopeful that these issues on driving, breakdowns and congestion can be addressed by the responsible authorities. Of course, there will be difficulties, but then as they say “Kung gusto, gagawa ng paraan. Kung ayaw, maraming dahilan.” (If they want it solved, they will find a way. If they don’t, they will make all the excuses.).
–
Caught (up) in traffic 