Afraid of EO 34? That's good
I have been issued a traffic citation twice in the span of seven years as a holder of a non-professional driver's license. One happened in Mandaue City when I failed to see the No-Left-Turn sign and the other one happened in downtown Cebu City late at night when, again, I failed to see the No-Entry sign.
In both instances I quickly apologized to the traffic officer, received with open heart the citation ticket, and later paid the fine at City Hall.
Did I introduce myself as a lawyer? Certainly I didn't. Aside from it was irrelevant at that moment, it was such a disgrace that I was not paying attention to the traffic signs. So the last thing I wanted in that situation was for the officer to know what I do for a living –upholding the rule of law– and there I was, violating a traffic rule by imprudence. I didn't want the misdeed to get worse by trying to wiggle myself out of it for no other reason than a bruised ego.
For another, we all have our little obsessions and one of mine happens to be for road and traffic etiquette. So it's such an embarrassment when I find myself at the other end of my ire –as a traffic violator.
It is in this light that I join the people of Cebu City in welcoming the mayor's Executive Order 34 against counterflowing which treats the act of driving on the opposite line as reckless driving and being a nuisance on the road, "pursuant to the Traffic Code (Republic Act 4136) and Cebu City Ordinance No. 801."
Of course, the measure is open to legal challenge which may be coming in the next few days. City Hall lawyers will have their work cut out for them in defending the legality of this measure.
Departing from any legal discussion, however, I agree with The FREEMAN's editorial yesterday which stated that there is really just one simple approach to the anti-counterflow executive order: Do not counterflow. It's not as if one can counterflow by carelessness or imprudence. Counterflowing is an intended act. You do it on purpose.
Think about this: Prior to the mayor's EO 34, what was the worst thing that could happen to a driver who took his vehicle to the opposite lane? A confiscated driver's license? A P500-peso fine, which by the way, a city councilor wants to increase to P2,000?
Even at that increased amount of fine, it's a low risk to a smug SUV driver whose vehicle is as big and shimmering as his ego, or to a struggling taxi driver determined to break away from the traffic just so he can make ends meet for the day.
Those who argue that we should punish the driver and not the vehicle may have a point. In some instances, the driver is not the owner of the vehicle he is driving. However, why couldn't the driver be conscious of the fact that he is responsible for the vehicle he is driving?
The answer is that he should be. And when the vehicle is impounded because he drove it against the flow of traffic, the driver should answer to the owner. Losing face and compensating for the 30-day demise of the vehicle are consequences too tough to disregard.
As for the multiple car owner who can always use another car in lieu of his impounded car, pray tell me if he does not lose sleep in the first few days that his dearest car is in the city impounding area. You may have heard of the saying, "A man's car often reflects who the man is. It affects his ego in many ways." By extension, that's where EO 34 can also hit hard.
Put in another way, for the longest time no one was scared of violating our traffic laws. This was until EO 34 came along. And I think we need that kind of fear in the short term until we figure out how to systemically educate our drivers and instill discipline among them in the long term.
- Latest
