First they said they were going to launch a no-nonsense campaign to enforce the use of helmets by all motorcycle drivers and riders. Among the supposed targets of this tightened drive are children. Maybe this was because it has been noted that many schoolchildren now ride motorcycles to and from school, many of which are for hire, or what are called in Cebuano as "habal-habal."
But no sooner had the authorities parted with the helmet crackdown announcement than they hastily modified it with a qualifier: Only children 10 years old and below will be made subject of the crackdown. It is not known why the announcement had to be modified and clarified when it already seemed very clear the first time around.
One guess would be that a howl of protest greeted the announcement, most probably from parents of schoolchildren. Such a protest would be understandable. The announcement came out of the blue. And the implementation was almost immediate. Thus it gave parents little or no time to comply and adjust. The result would be a sudden disruption of the schooling of the affected children.
Anyway, now that the modified directive would only include children 10 years old and below, a good question to ask would be: Are children above 10 years old any safer without helmets than those who are younger? On the other hand, even if they are, are children older than 10 then exempted from the helmet law? The obvious answer is of course they aren't. Nobody is exempted.
So why the modification? Did the authorities panic? If the authorities panicked, then they better put off the directive until such time that they are ready to implement it in a no-nonsense way. The last thing we need is to embark on something that we can only implement haphazardly. That will only result in something that is both unfair and unable to result in its desired objective.
Meanwhile, as authorities ponder how to go about this latest initiative, it might serve the authorities well if they realize that the initiative is in fact a giant step in the right direction. Riding motorcycles is something very risky and dangerous. If such risks and dangers can be minimized, such as requiring everyone to wear helmets, then that is the way to go.
The authorities cannot allow themselves to be derailed by opposition. And if they really need a strong enough argument to sustain this drive on helments, especially for all children and not just those 10 and below, it is this: If children below 13 are not allowed to ride on the front seats of cars, which are a lot safer than motorcycles, why treat kids on motorcycles with more tolerance?
Safety initiatives should be regarded by authorities with more seriousness and should be pursued for the greater interest. The surest way for a good initiative to get derailed and fail is for it to be rendered flexible by every protest and complaint it encounters. Initiatives must be pursued resolutely. If there is no intention to do that, then what is the sense in pursuing it at all.