Early Warning Delayed

Last month, there was a news report about a regional transport office set to fully implement the law on the use of early warning devices, or EWDs, starting July 2013.  According to the article, the transport office issued Memorandum VPT 2013-1762 dated May 20, 2013, on the revised rules on the installation of EWDs as earlier stipulated under Republic Act 4136, or the Land Transportation Act of the Philippines.  The memo states that failure to equip a four-wheeled motor vehicle with a pair of EWDs is basis for the apprehension of the driver by transport office personnel or its deputized agents.

The memo further states that the regional transport offices are no longer allowed to renew the registration of a vehicle unless the vehicle owner can present a pair of prescribed EWDs.

There are three things to note in this article.  First is the strict implementation of the law on EWDs.  If memory serves me right, there was a similar directive issued in 2003, when the transport office required the concurrent registration of an EWD conforming to new design standards during the annual registration of a vehicle.  One begs to ask, why is there a need to issue another directive ten years later when this had already been a requirement since 2003?  With the issuance of the new memo, are they saying that for the last ten years, no one from the transport office bothered to implement that directive?  And, am I asking a rhetorical question since we are able to witness such absence of EWDs when we see vehicles stalled on the road and their only EWD is a tire dangerously laid flat in the middle of the road and no traffic enforcer is tagging them for such a violation?

Second, a similar such directive was issued last December 2011 (Memorandum Circular No. VPT-2012-1609 dated December 13, 2011) which many regional offices started implementing on March 1, 2013.  Is there something I missed over the past six months?  I am starting to wonder if I have also been deneuralized by men in black and totally forgot any event that may have led to the redundant reiteration of a memorandum.  Are the people in the transport office really that daft and unfocused that they need to be reminded of their job every six months?  Or are they actually doing their jobs at all?  Tough to say they aren’t, since there are already numerous moped drivers who roam the streets without the prescribe headgear that the transport office was supposed to strictly implement and monitor starting this year.

Lastly, the transport office kept saying that this new directive is issued in line with Republic Act 4136 (RA 4136 - Land Transportation and Traffic Code) and Letter of Instruction 229 (LOI 229).  Oddly, if you read through RA 4136, there is no clear mention of EWDs for stalled vehicles.  They mention parking lights and traffic flares (Article IV, Section 34 (g)).  That is completely understandable since RA 4136 was signed into law on June 20, 1964.  Fast forward to today, that’s not what the transport office requires.  They require yellow and red reflective triangles that one must place at both ends of the stalled vehicle.  This, one can point out is what was revised by LOI 229.  The letter states that “all powers, users or drivers of motor vehicles shall have at all times in their motor vehicles at least one (1) pair of early warning device consisting of a triangular; collapsible reflectorized plates in red and yellow colors at least 5 cms. at the base and 40 cms. at the sides.”

It’s a good thing then President Ferdinand Marcos signed this letter in December 2, 1974, else we’d still be stuck with flares.  And it is an even better thing that the transport office finally decided to strictly implement this instruction thirty-nine years later. @backseatdrivr