Two versus Four

CEBU, Philippines - As you are reading this, the streets are probably as empty as they were circa 1970’s (if you were around back then anyway).  The reason for this is that everyone is probably glued to their television sets or are comfortably packed inside viewing venues for the fourth installment of the gladiatorial battle between our fighting congressman and his pee-drinking nemesis.

As this is the motoring section, I will leave the fight analysis to everyone else who feels they’re qualified to be a ringside judge (meaning, everybody).  I would rather talk about the popular misconception that in a traffic collision involving a four or more-wheeled vehicle (which I will refer to as automobile) and a scooter (this is my description of any two-wheeled, motorized vehicle allowed to wreak havoc on our streets), it is almost automatically the fault of the four or more-wheeled vehicle.  I will outline some scenarios which refute this urban myth.

Scenario 1:  If an automobile is running on the innermost lane and a scooter overtakes it on the left by crossing over the yellow line and (due to a sudden need for self-preservation) swerves back into the lane and comes into contact with the automobile, is it the automobile’s fault?  Most traffic enforcers seem to think so.  I’ve had many a talk with drivers who’ve had to surrender their license and claim guilt just because the traffic enforcer claims so.  Since when is a traffic collision caused by a counter-flowing vehicle not their fault?  By the way, driving counter-flow carries a two thousand peso penalty on its own.

Scenario 2:  If an automobile, rightfully occupying the lane designated as a single vehicle occupancy lane,  has to move slightly within his lane to avoid a road obstacle and comes into side to side contact with a scooter who is intent to defy traffic laws and the laws of physics by claiming that two objects and/or vehicles can occupy one lane at the same time, is it still the fault of the automobile?  Again, most traffic enforcers and scooter drivers seem to think so.  Just because a single-vehicle lane has enough space to squeeze in an automobile and gazillion scooters doesn’t mean it is meant as such.  A single-vehicle lane is a single-vehicle lane regardless of size and width.

Scenario 3:  If an automobile moves to the shoulder (allowing just that teensy gap for Evel Knievel to attempt another daredevil jump) to let off a passenger, and when the car has come to a complete stop, the passenger door swings open directly at the path of a scooter (whose driver was raised to believe that the shoulder is an exclusive micro-lane for scooters) and the scooter crashes into the door, is it still the fault of the automobile?  For the nth time, most traffic enforcers and scooter drivers seem to think so.  Since when is the road shoulder a running lane?

There are many other scenarios that come to mind where it is obviously the fault of the scooter and not the automobile. Yet, most of our traffic enforcers seem to have missed out on this part of their lecture and, almost automatically, tell the driver of the automobile that the traffic collision is his fault because his opponent is a scooter.

In case this happens to you when you’re driving an automobile, simply ask the traffic enforcer for the law or statute that claims such.  I will bet the people’s champ’s new prancing horse in LA that they will not be able to come up with a law, statute or ordinance that will clearly state that a counter-flowing, lane-crowding, or shoulder running vehicle is never at fault.

Sometimes I wonder if scooter drivers and traffic enforcers, who claim to have participated in the proper seminars, read the heading of the seminar they were attending to make sure it was a road rules and regulations seminar and not a pre-cana or pre-jordan seminar.

Oh, and it’s gonna be the congressman in four. (FREEMAN)