Dangerous motorcycle rule

EDITORIAL

The controversial Covid-19 motorcycle barrier.

The Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID) has rescinded its dangerous rule, by July 31 that motorcycle backriders will be required to mount a barrier between the driver and passenger or risk apprehension and fine.

The task force calls it a “protective” barrier, but netizens called it a shameful misrepresentation. Protests over this requirement fell on deaf ears but later, its enforcement was delayed from July 10 to July 31.

               The controversial rule permits backriders but they must be family members or inhabitants of the same house but a protective shield must be installed between driver and passenger.

The rule was initially limited to married couples, but that was changed as soon as the new guidelines were announced. Motorcycles continue backriding with improvised barriers along roads after a report stated that extension to install barriers was announced.

The National Task Force Against COVID-19 extended the deadline for riders to July 26 for them to install barriers based from approved design by Bohol Gov. Arthur Yap and a design by ride hailing service ‘Angkas’ proposed by George Royeca.

The protective shield must be similar to the prototype offered by Yap, an official who was not known for his vehicle engineering expertise. It consists of a flat transparent plastic panel extending from the seat to above the height of the rear passenger’s head.

An alternative version worn on the back of the motorcycle driver and reportedly developed by drivers from the motorcycle ride-hailing service Angkas (which is not permitted to operate passenger service under the new rule) is also acceptable, according to the IATF-EID.

Other existing rules such as use of helmets and face masks must also be observed. Motorcycle riders not complying with the guidelines can be apprehended by traffic enforcers and subjected to stiff fines.

In response to widespread criticism that the required shields are very likely dangerous to both the driver and the passenger, and not only unnecessary but utterly useless against the transmission of the novel coronavirus, the Philippine National Police said the shield system had been subjected to “testing” and that no possible impediments to its use had been found.

After that announcement, however, photos, presumably provided by the PNP, were circulated online, showing that the “testing” involved placing two helmeted “riders” seated one behind the other in office chairs, facing a desk-mounted electric fan while the rear “passenger” held the obligatory protective shield.

This comical scene was ridiculed by netizens. Motoring and engineering experts said the “protective shield” requirement was not based on common sense or science.

More qualified critics have since joined the call for the IATF-EID to rescind its senseless requirement. In separate public statements last week, both the Motorcycle Development Program Participants’ Association (MDPPA) and the Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers provided detailed technical explanations of the dangerous flaws of the “protective shield” concept, and called for the rule to be recalled immediately.

The MDPPA is an association of the country’s four major motorcycle manufacturers: Honda Philippines Inc., Kawasaki Motors (Phils.) Corp., Suzuki Philippines Inc. and Yamaha Motor Philippines Inc.

It pointed out that, among other dangers posed by the shields, installation of such devices “is a possible violation of the Land Transportation Office’s vehicle modification regulations and shall be a breach of the warranty agreement between the motorcycle owner and the manufacturer.”

Should the IATF-EID insist on enforcing this dangerous requirement, netizens are hoping no one is injured due to the use of the shield. If anyone is, however, the members of the task force who agreed to the “protective shield” rule should be held personally liable for any harm done.