Another stupid measure

"The authors of this bill claim they want to ensure the safety of cyclists."

Just before Congress went on a break, the Lower House approved on third reading, a bill that two lawmakers—ACT Teacher Rep. Antonio Tinio and Catanduanes Rep. Cesar Sarmiento—had filed.

The bill is called "Minimum Overtaking of Cyclists Distance Act,” which, according to them, is intended to make cycling safer throughout the country. It mandates a minimum overtaking distance of 1.5 meters between a motor vehicle and a bicycle or its operator.

The measure provides that the driver of a motor vehicle overtaking and passing a bicycle that is traveling in the same direction shall maintain a minimum overtaking distance of 1.5 meters between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its cyclist.

For its implementation, the bill also mandates the Metro Manila Development Authority, Philippine National Police, local government units and other concerned government agencies and instrumentalities to be responsible for the enforcement of the foregoing provisions and shall render such assistance as may be required by the Department of Transportation-Land Transportation Office, the lead agency identified to implement the proposed law.

There is of course a corresponding penalty for violators: P5,000 fine for the first offense; P10,000 fine for the second offense; P15,000  fine and suspension of driver’s license for three months for the third offense; and P20,000 fine and revocation of driver’s license for the fourth offense. The DOTr may raise these penalties every five years.

Tinio, one of the authors, justified his bill by saying that mandating a minimum overtaking distance is one way of protecting cyclists and other road users. It will also encourage more people to take up cycling, whether for commuting, exercise, or leisure.

Due to lack or absence of cycling-friendly infrastructure throughout the country, he said, cyclists are forced to journey side-by-side with motor vehicles, exposing them daily to the risk of serious or fatal accidents.

Now, the question is: From what planet did these lawmakers, especially the authors of this bill, come from?

With Congress holding session from Monday to Wednesday, I’m pretty sure they share the experience of encountering these cycylist and motorcycle riders along Commonwealth Avenue with other motorist en route to their offices in Batasan Pambansa.

And unless they are sleeping inside their cars as their drivers traverse the length of the Commonwealth Avenue. Otherwise, they would have seen for themselves what lane these cyclist and riders are fond of taking—the inner lane of the road or the fast lane.

By logic, the inner lane, being the fast lane, should be the territory of the faster moving vehicles. But then, public utility vehicles, buses, jeepneys, and vans have seemingly adopted the outermost lane as their own, using every part of it as their terminal, these cyclist and riders, end even tricycles, have laid claim to the inner lane for their use instead.

Now, are these lawmakers aware that 1.5 meters is almost the same width as a car? And that mandating a minimum of 1.5 meters distance between a motor vehicle and a cyclist or rider, is tantamount to designating that particular lane to the cyclists or riders? 

So if the cyclist or rider prefers to use the inner lane, the four-wheeled vehicle would be relegated to the outer lane or the slower lanes. And this would only result to much heavier traffic on the road.

And since it is the cyclist and the rider who prefer what lane to use even as there has already been a designated lane for riders, heeding the 1.5 meters minimum distance would resort to chaos on the roads as drivers of four-wheeled vehicles would be left to the mercy of these cyclists and riders.

If the proponents of the measure are really after the safety of these cyclists and riders, then they should file a bill mandating the construction of a fenced bicycle and motorcycle lane. If it is not possible, they should ensure traffic enforcers would strictly enforce the loading and unloading zone, abolish all illegal terminals so that these cyclists and riders would never be bothered by PUV drivers as they tread the outermost lane of the road.

An incident involving a motorcycle rider and his wife and that of another car should have enlightened the lawmakers on the implications of a slow-moving vehicle taking on the fast lane. 

If we are to analyze the video, the motorcycle was navigating on the middle lane, which is a relatively faster lane. However, the car, a fast-moving black Honda if I remember, caught up with him. In street parlance, “nabitin yung Honda dahil mabagal yung motor.”

That apparently pissed off the driver of the car and he sideswiped the motorcycle, resulting in the serious injury of its driver and the death of his backrider.

I’m not siding with the driver of the car. Let him rot in hell for all I care. While a slow-moving vehicle has no business traversing that relatively fast lane, he should have never resorted to that kind of retaliatory action. he can never bring back the life of the rider’s wife, no matter how much he apologizes.

But the issue there is if there were enforcers around that time to ensure what vehicle should use a particular lane, that incident could have been avoided. Unfortunately, it seems traffic enforcers also are not aware of the use of the inner and outer lanes.

Maybe they should be reoriented on the basic traffic rules, etiquette and courtesy. But better still, let’s start with those lawmakers.