OPINION: We really need a rule telling drivers to stop for pedestrians?

LTO is drafting a one-strike policy that could revoke the licenses of motorists who hit pedestrians at designated crossings.

The Land Transportation Office (LTO) is drafting a memorandum order that would impose a strict “one-strike” policy on motorists involved in pedestrian lane incidents. Under the proposed rule, a driver who ignores a designated pedestrian lane and strikes a pedestrian could face automatic revocation of their driver’s license.

At face value, this is a good policy. It is difficult to argue against holding motorists accountable when their refusal to yield puts a pedestrian’s life at risk.

LTO Assistant Secretary Markus V. Lacanilao is right to target the chronic disregard for pedestrian safety on Philippine roads. If losing the privilege to drive is the consequence of recklessly ignoring a pedestrian lane, then responsible motorists should have little reason to complain.

What gets me, though, is that we apparently need a memorandum order to tell people this.

A pedestrian lane is not some obscure traffic regulation buried in a thick rulebook. Those white stripes painted across the road are a very simple instruction that motorists should understand immediately. Someone is crossing, so the vehicle should slow down and yield until the pedestrian has safely made it across.

That should be basic driving behavior.

Yet the LTO is now considering a rule with a potentially career-ending consequence for a driver just to reinforce something that should have been learned long before that person was handed a license.

And that says quite a lot about the way we drive.

Every day, pedestrians have to make judgment calls that should never be theirs to make. Can that car see me? Will it stop? Is that motorcycle going to squeeze past me while I’m crossing? Should I wait even though I already have the right of way?

A pedestrian lane is supposed to provide some assurance that motorists will yield. Instead, crossing one can sometimes feel like negotiating with traffic and hoping everyone makes the right decision.

The cost of this behavior is not limited to traffic citations or a few extra seconds on the road. A pedestrian has no bumper, windshield or airbag between them and a moving vehicle. When a driver chooses to ignore a crossing, the person paying for that decision can suffer injuries, lose income, face medical bills or, in the worst cases, lose their life.

That makes the proposed LTO rule worth taking seriously.

A driver’s license is a privilege, not a permanent entitlement. It comes with the responsibility to operate a vehicle without putting other people in unnecessary danger. If a motorist can see a pedestrian lane, see someone crossing and still chooses to keep going, there should be consequences.

But there is something deeply frustrating about having to legislate what should already be common courtesy.

We should not need the threat of losing a driver’s license to convince motorists that a person crossing the street deserves to get to the other side safely.

Still, if strict enforcement is what it takes to make pedestrian lanes mean something again, then enforce it. The penalties should be clear, and motorists should know that ignoring a pedestrian’s right of way can carry serious consequences.

Maybe, eventually, stopping at a pedestrian lane will become so ordinary that nobody needs to be threatened into doing it.

That’s the point.

READ: