Personal mobility and public safety

On April 15, authorities started restricting certain types of light vehicles from major roads in Metro Manila. The ban was imposed particularly on tricycles, light electric vehicles such as e-bikes and e-scooters, and other electric personal transport. The ban supposedly aims to ensure road safety and reduce the number of accidents involving these vehicles.

In Singapore, as reported in the Straits Times, there are also discussions about the regulation of what they call personal mobility aids, including speed restrictions and medical certification for persons with disabilities (PWDs) using light electric vehicles. In both cases, here and there, the issues revolve around urban mobility and safety.

The debates highlight the tension between improving road safety and promoting inclusive mobility in densely populated urban environments. The regulatory objective is to curtail misuse or abuse and promote public safety. In Singapore, the regulation advocate is the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP). Here, it is the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA).

The contention is that regulations have a negative impact on accessibility and individual mobility, particularly of some sectors relying on these nontraditional solutions. The argument is that restrictions disproportionately affect the working class, students, those with disabilities and small business operators who rely on light electric vehicles for daily commuting and economic activities.

The issue points to the challenge of balancing safety and inclusivity. To ensure safety, segregated lanes and clear demarcations are suggested, instead of outright bans. Critics of the ban also point out that improving infrastructure to accommodate all forms of mobility, rather than restricting them, would be a more effective and equitable solution to traffic congestion and safety.

Locally, the MMDA road ban is also seen as being at odds with the Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act, which promotes the use of electric vehicles to reduce urban air pollution. Similarly, in Singapore, while the focus is on safety and proper usage of light electric vehicles as personal mobility aids, there is a call for regulations to also consider environmental sustainability and the promotion of energy-efficient vehicles.

Moving forward, perhaps regulations should consider integrated solutions that satisfactorily address safety, inclusivity and environmental impact. For instance, much like the use of dedicated bicycle lanes and pedestrian pathways, perhaps something similar can be considered to accommodate light electric vehicles. But there should be speed limits and usage guidelines.

More important, public transportations systems should be improved to offer options that provide viable alternatives to light electric vehicles and address concerns about accessibility and connectivity. If there are safer, more convenient and cheaper alternatives to e-bikes and e-scooters, as well as cars, then more people will most likely take public transportation.

The crux of the matter is that necessity heeds no law. Desperate people take desperate measures. And those who need to get from one point to another, especially as a matter of livelihood, will be ready to violate rules and risk penalties. This is also because traffic enforcers will not be around 24-7. In short, there will be “windows of opportunity” for people to use their light electric vehicles even on banned roads.

I believe that these vehicles may be allowed on some public roads, but there should be clearer guidelines on where and how they can be used. Regulations particularly for personal mobility devices, which include e-scooters, hoverboards and other similar transportation tools, should be realistic and consistently enforced. For instance, safety helmets are required.

But any light electric vehicles smaller than a motorcycle should have special lanes on national roads, or any city road for that matter, much like bicycles. They may be allowed on private, subdivision and maybe village roads. But on any other public road, these should have specially built pathways beside or alongside sidewalks or bicycle lanes.

Speed limits should also be set for every mobility device. Also, any vehicle type allowed on public roads should be registered, issued license or registration plates, and the owner must have insurance for accidents. Light electric vehicle users must be licensed and age limits set. Sidewalks should be limited to pedestrians, wheelchairs and low-speed personal mobility devices.

Obviously, any regulatory action should be preceded by a process of harmonizing standards. Light electric vehicles and personal mobility devices should be covered by global definitions and technical specifications. Most of them are produced abroad. There should be Philippine National Standards to cover these mobility devices.

Also, rules should be dynamic and consider the needs of the times. Given the pace of technological change, modes of transport can change very quickly. Big changes in infrastructure are always difficult to undo. Policy makers should always be ahead of the curve and future-proof regulations to ensure they lead to as little disruption as possible at every change point.

The challenge, of course, is to always ensure that rules and regulations consider public safety, decongestion, the diverse needs of urban dwellers and road users and promote an inclusive approach to zoning and city planning. The overall aim is to promote long-term environmental and social goals, ensuring that cities remain healthy, livable and efficient.

More important, pedestrians should always be a part of the equation. Cities should, first and foremost, be walkable. The rights of motorists and users of light electric vehicles and other mobility aids should not take priority over those of pedestrians.

Walking is the most basic form of mobility, and in any public space, pedestrians are the most vulnerable. They should have the most protection under the law.

But such protection requires reciprocity by way of pedestrians being mindful and respectful of other road users. Mutual respect is necessary. Pedestrians should also be responsible users of public space. If erring motorists are penalized, there should be penalties for erring pedestrians as well. In this regard, effective pedestrian and driver education are the most important interventions.

Source: Business World

How can a Christmas tree be a fire hazard?

A Christmas tree can be a fire hazard, especially once the needles dry out. Keep your tree well-watered and avoid keeping live trees longer than four weeks. Keep away from any sources of heat.

2017 USA statistics

Tips for safe holiday decorating

Decorating and hosting are fun but can pose risks. A lot of decorating-related injuries occur daily during the holiday season; about half of the incidents involve falls.

As you decorate your home for the holidays, watch for common holiday hazards and safety slip-ups. Use these tips:

• Put safety first : We know you want your decorations to look great. But do not sacrifice safety to do it. Ensure that all decorations are properly secured to your home and are not at risk of falling. Check local recalls and safety alerts.

• Choose a safe artificial tree : Choose a tree that is fire resistant; you will see a fire-resistant label when buying. When setting it up, ensure the base is sturdy to avoid tipping or falling over.

• Keep live trees watered : Make sure you choose a fresh live tree. Keep it watered to ensure it remains green and fresh and not become a fire hazard.

• Inspect all light strands before using: Carefully inspect all light strands for damage, loose sockets, fraying, and broken lights. Only use CSA-approved lights.

• Do not overuse extension cords : Never connect more than one extension cord. Ensure you don't overextend electrical outlets, or they could short out.

• Choose decorations wisely: Avoid using decorations that look like food or toys if you have young children or pets.

•  Use a helper for decorating: Always have someone spot you when using a ladder, lifting heavy boxes, and hanging lights.

• Place decorations carefully: Keep sharp and potentially dangerous decorations and ornaments out of reach for kids and pets. Look for shatterproof ornaments as an added precaution in case they fall off the tree. Also, keep decorations away from heat sources.

• Turn off lights when leaving: Turn off your outside and indoor holiday lights before going to bed or leaving your home.

Cyclists deserve safe pathways

One of the bills in Congress that should be certified as urgent is the Safe Pathways Network Act. Many millions of Filipinos are already on bicycles and there will be even more in the coming years. They, however, cycle under hazardous conditions — every day cyclists suffer major injuries or are killed on local roads. Our obligation is to make sure that cyclists are safe. Legislators need to give full meaning to the directive in the Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028 that pedestrians and cyclists enjoy the highest priority in the hierarchy of road users.

Between November 2020 and May 2021, a Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey found that the percentage of urban households with bicycles increased from 11 percent to 24 percent and that the number of households with bicycles outnumbered those with cars 4 to 1. One out of every five households also uses a bicycle for essential travel. The trends are unmistakable. Just look at bicycles parked at malls, office buildings, shops and construction sites — on any day, these are likely to be full of bicycles.

Why are there many more Filipinos on bicycles? First, many are using them out of necessity. With rising fuel and transportation costs, cycling helps families cope with a high inflation environment. With money saved on transportation, they have more to spend for food, health care and education. Bicycles help Filipinos cope with and overcome poverty. Second, bicycles keep people in jobs and in schools by offering predictable travel times, especially in an environment where public transportation is insufficient and where motor vehicles can often be stuck in traffic. Ask any daily cyclist, and they will tell you that if it were not for their bicycle, they will likely be wasting an additional one to two hours every day on travel.

Third are the many Filipinos who could use a car or motorcycle but recognize that every motor vehicle adds to the heat, pollution, road congestion and carbon that our cities and our planet can no longer afford. Their travel choices are helping to make our cities and towns more livable for all of us.

Not only are large numbers of Filipinos already on bicycles, but many millions more would be ready to use one if conditions were better. The SWS found that 80 percent of Filipinos agree that "more people will use bicycles as transportation if the roads will be safer for them"; 85 percent agree that "it is possible for my city/municipality to become a great place for walking and cycling"; 87 percent agree that "roads in Philippine cities and municipalities will be better off if public transportation, bicycles and pedestrians are given priority over private vehicles"; and 75 percent agree that "cycling is just as effective as other types of transportation in going to different places."

Cyclists need to have a network of safe protected pathways in every city and town connecting key destinations, with infrastructure that meets global safety standards. If motor vehicles are allowed to travel on a road at speeds above 30 kilometers per hour, a bike lane cannot just be marked by paint — there needs to be physical separators or barriers to prevent cars and motorcycles from mixing in the same space as bicycles. If physical separation is not possible, then the road should be re-classified as a "slow street" with priority at all times for pedestrians and cyclists, reduced speed limits for any motor vehicle using the road and traffic-calming infrastructure (speed humps, raised crossings, narrowed lanes, etc.) that forces vehicles to slow down.

Any law on cycling should avoid introducing rules, such as bicycle registration, that would discourage cycling. Similarly, safety gear can be recommended but should not be mandatory. Road designs that protect cyclists are more effective in saving lives than compelling them to wear helmets, bright clothing or use lights that many may not be able to afford.

We often hear the argument that the main roads should be prioritized for cars while bicycles should travel only on secondary roads. People walking or cycling deserve the shortest and most direct routes because they are propelled by their own energy and do not have any negative impact on the environment. Those privileged to travel in motor vehicles powered by fossil fuels can take the longer routes.

Every one of us has a colleague, friend or loved one who uses a bicycle regularly. Whether they are cycling out of choice or out of necessity, their lives are precious. As the safe pathways bills are reviewed and finalized, we trust that legislators will remember that the safety of Filipinos on bicycles is of far greater importance than enabling more motor vehicles to move faster on local roads.

Source: Manila Times