Saturday, September 27, 2008 Nalzaro: LTO should review its administrative order By Bobby Nalzaro Saksi
MOTORCYCLE owners, especially members of bikers associations, are up in arms against a Land Transportation Office (LTO) administrative order putting in place new rules and regulations and imposing heavier penalties on violators.
Bikers groups have launched a signature campaign and are set to stage protest actions to pressure LTO officials to recall the order. In Dumaguete City, motorcycle riders petitioned the court for a temporary restraining order preventing LTO from enforcing the order.
LTO Administrative Order AHS 2008-015 penalizes these violations: failure to wear a helmet (P1,500 fine); carrying more passengers other than the back rider or cargo other than the saddle bags (P1,000 fine); defective accessories like headlight, tail light, signal light, break light, side mirror and horn (P1,000 fine); modifying any part of the original design of a motorcycle without LTO approval (P2,000 fine); and wearing flip-flops, sandals or slippers or being barefooted while operating motorcycle on the road or highway (P1,000 fine).
These provisions, the bikers said, violate their rights as taxpayers. They questioned the manner the order is being hastily enforced and accused LTO officials of money-making.
Teotimo S. Manigos e-mailed me and expressed his disappointment over the order. He questioned some of its provisions, like ordering the wearing of sandals and slippers which, according to LTO officials, may affect the timing of the bike's brakes. Did LTO conduct a survey on the number of road accidents involving motorcycles whose drivers wore only slippers, Manigos asked.
As for the wearing prescribed motorcycle attire like jackets, heavy jeans, goggles and leather boots, what is the connection of these requirements to road accidents? Again, did they conduct a study on this? This is only applicable to rich people who own big bikes but not to the poor who own cheap and small bikes.
Those who possess small types of motorcycles usually belong to the low-income group. If they can afford to buy cars, why would they sacrifice by riding bikes that expose them to environmental hazards?
On the aspect of changing and modifying motorcycle parts, Manigos said this provision is ridiculous. Why would LTO impose its own policy? Owners have the discretion to do what they want to with their vehicles. What if the present owner assumed the modified unit from a previous owner? Should he spend thousands of pesos just to revert to the motorcycle’s original design?
Manigos also asked why habal-habal (motorcycle for hire) drivers are exempted when their situation is more dangerous considering that they carry passengers to the mountain areas. If LTO wants to strictly implement the order, it should not be selective. Why exempt “habal-habal” drivers? What is so special with them?
I think the concerns of bike owners are very valid. Why make their lives miserable? Instead, in view of rising oil prices, government should encourage people to buy and use motorcycles to save on oil expenses.
LTO should review the order and consider what is acceptable to the affected sector and what is applicable to present times.
