James Deakin: Have you been a victim of "Tyranny of the Weak"

**ab_initio** · February 12th, 2011 12:04 AM

I’m not trying to turn this into a rich vs. poor issue; this is solely about being responsible. Driving is a privilege – not a right – and must be treated as such. If you choose to do it, especially if you intend on making a living from it, you must accept the responsibilities as well as the dangers involved. What irks me more than those blasted pink fences is that a lot of drivers, especially public utility drivers who always claim they have no money, drive like they have the sultan of Brunei signing checks for them. They weave in and out, stop randomly on the fast lane and squeeze past you at the traffic lights like the road was named after them. And only when they hit you do they cry poverty.

. in some other countries, if the maximum number of passengers allowed by law is four, they won't allow you even if the fifth mounting passenger is a day old infant. because doing so would mean violation of the insurance policy, hence, complete liability stays on the driver.

Originally Posted by istan

nice idea yun insurance for passenger jeeps and tricycles. It must be included in their LTo registration. Business naman yan e, they earn from it.

Presidential Decree 612 answers this. it states and even made it compulsory:

Sec. 377. Every land transportation operator and every owner of a motor vehicle shall, before applying for the registration or renewal of registration of any motor vehicle, at his option, either secure an insurance policy or surety bond issued by any insurance company authorized by the Commissioner or make a cash deposit in such amount as herein required as limit of liability for purposes specified in section three hundred seventy-four.
(1) In the case of a land transportation operator, the insurance guaranty in cash or surety bond shall cover liability for death or bodily injuries of third-parties and/or passengers arising out of the use of such vehicle in the amount not less than twelve thousand pesos per passenger or third party and an amount, for each of such categories, in any one accident of not less than that set forth in the following scale:

(a) Motor vehicles with an authorized capacity of twenty-six or more passengers: Fifty thousand pesos;(b) Motor vehicles with an authorized capacity of from twelve to twenty-five passengers: Forty thousand pesos;
(c) Motor vehicles with an authorized capacity of from six to eleven passengers: Thirty thousand pesos;
(d) Motor vehicles with an authorized capacity of five or less passengers: Five thousand pesos multiplied by the authorized capacity.

Provided, however, That such cash deposit made to, or surety bond posted with, the Commissioner shall be resorted to by him in cases of accidents the indemnities for which to third-parties and/or passengers are not settled accordingly by the land transportation operator and, in that event, the said cash deposit shall be replenished or such surety bond shall be restored with sixty days after impairment or expiry, as the case may be, by such land transportation operator, otherwise, he shall secure the insurance policy required by this chapter. The aforesaid cash deposit may be invested by the Commissioner in readily marketable government bonds and/or securities.
(2) In the case of an owner of a motor vehicle, the insurance or guaranty in cash or surety bond shall cover liability for death or injury to third parties in an amount not less than that set forth in the following scale in any one accident:

I. Private Cars
- (a) Bantam : Twenty thousand pesos;
  (b) Light : Twenty thousand pesos;
  (c) Heavy : Thirty thousand pesos;
II. Other Private Vehicles
- (a) Tricycles, motorcyles, and scooters : Twelve thousand pesos;
  (b) Vehicles with an unladen weight of 2,600 kilos or less : Twenty thousand pesos;
  (c) Vehicles with an unladen weight of between 2,601 kilos and 3,930 kilos : Thirty thousand pesos;
  (d) Vehicles with an unladen weight over 3,930 kilos : Fifty thousand pesos.

the same law wants to assure the mounting or dismounting public of pocket money(hehehe) in case of emergency:

Sec. 378. Any claim for death or injury to any passenger or third party pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be paid without the necessity of proving fault or negligence of any kind; Provided, That for purposes of this section:

(i) The total indemnity in respect of any person shall not exceed five thousand pesos;(ii) The following proofs of loss, when submitted under oath, shall be sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim:
- (a) Police report of accident; and(b) Death certificate and evidence sufficient to establish the proper payee; or
  (c) Medical report and evidence of medical or hospital disbursement in respect of which refund is claimed;
(iii) Claim may be made against one motor vehicle only. In the case of an occupant of a vehicle, claim shall lie against the insurer of the vehicle in which the occupant is riding, mounting or dismounting from. In any other case, claim shall lie against the insurer of the directly offending vehicle. In all cases, the right of the party paying the claim to recover against the owner of the vehicle responsible for the accident shall be maintained.

**donbuggy** · February 12th, 2011 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by shadow

sabihin mo na kung sino. baka meron mag suicide ka rin parang si Reyes. ayaw mo sabihin yun mga alam mo.

Honorable naman. :bwahaha:

**_Cathy_** · September 26th, 2022 06:42 PM

Truer now than ever with the number of kamotes rising exponentially since this article was written

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

The following was taken from Philippine Star:

Philstar.com | Latest Philippine news and multimedia

========================================

Tyranny of the Weak
BACKSEAT DRIVER By James Deakin
Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Picture this. You are 24 years old and are about to take delivery of your first ever brand new car. You have saved up for more than six years for this, swapping the joy of those trips to Boracay with the barkada, as well as the Friday/Saturday night scene with the boys, all for this one moment. It is the biggest thing to happen in your life so far and is as close as it gets to pacing up and down the hallway outside the delivery room when you’re expecting your first child.

After all, this is not just a car that you have bought; it’s independence. It symbolizes all the hard work and sacrifices you have made over the years and is most likely going to be the second biggest investment you will make in your whole life. You haven’t slept properly in days just dreaming about it, and now you’re about to live that dream. If you could hit the pause button in life, now would be a good time.

You drive out of the dealership. Your face hurts from smiling so much. You’re sitting at the traffic lights running your hand over the dash and every other surface you can touch, just to make sure it is all real and you’re not still dreaming. Then you hear the sickening sound of metal against metal. You glance in your mirrors and see this fast food delivery bike next to you that has just put a deep four inch scratch down the side of your car as he tried to squeeze past.

Before you have time to even mourn, or wrap your fingers around this idiot’s scrawny little neck and beat him with the helmet that he is wearing on his elbow, you get hit with something a lot worse: “Sorry, po. I have no money. My grandmother is sick; my pet died; we lost our roof in the last typhoon; global warming killed our crops; I voted for Miriam Santiago in the last elections.” All the excuses under the tropical sun; but nothing in the way of a solution. Essentially, to compound your pain, You now find out what it is like to become a victim of the “tyranny of the weak” – a mysterious yet unspoken form of anarchy that rules our roads.

Sadly, all this happened to my friend Chris; but I’m sure that each and every one of you has experienced your own version of this story in varying degrees. And it has to stop. If this was just an accident, I wouldn’t be writing about it. But it’s not. It’s an attitude.

How do the weak practice tyranny? It is actually quite simple and explained beautifully by author, Ron McCray. He suggests that the basis for all psychological weakness is a refusal to take responsibility for one’s actions. For example, if I complain to my editor that I just can’t write this month’s Backseat Driver column because I have writer’s block, my hope is that he will find someone else to do it or even write it himself. Although I have a better shot at personally igniting World Peace than getting Dong Magsajo to write my articles for me, it still serves as a good example.

Basically, it would mean that I have shifted the responsibility of my commitment to someone else, and my excuse is that I am too “weak” to write it. Much like how this delivery bike rider scratches his head after side swiping Chris’ new car and says, “Pasensiya na lang po. Wala akong pera.” (Sorry, I have no money.) The weak prey on the strong, or in this case the (perceived) rich, to take on their responsibilities, and the strong, having pity or sympathy for the weak, often do.

McCray continues to explain that a situation like this gives the weak person reinforcement that says, “Hey, this weak act really works! I’m going to do more of it.” The weak person soon has others letting him cut in front, counter-flowing down major roads, solving legal problems for them, paying their hospital bills for them when they get hurt and generally solving “problems” for which the weak cannot seem to find solutions. It is manipulation of a highly developed and subversive order.

A few years ago, I was on Pioneer Street in Mandaluyong, turning left into one of the streets when a tricycle came barreling down the wrong side of the road from behind trying to break the TODA land speed record. When he saw my nose pull out, he swerved to miss my car. There was no contact between us; he was on the wrong side of the road; and he was driving way beyond the limits of his vehicle. But somehow it was my fault. He was traveling so fast that the evasive action alone sent his tricycle tumbling like a giant ball down the street, bouncing as high as six feet in the air, in a spectacular display of three wheeled acrobatics. But after the dust had settled, all eyes were on me.

I had to pay for the hospital bills of his passenger. He even tried to get me to pay for his tricycle and the loss of income, too. Not my fault, of course, but you know the drill. At first I was stubborn about it, until I was surrounded by an angry mob of his fellow tricycle drivers and realized that my pride could have cost me my life.

Another reader wrote in after he almost died because a truck had stalled on the highway after midnight and remained parked up with no lights or EWD. Once again, it was automatically his fault. Plus, he was given the dreaded, the-truck-driver-has-no-money-routine. So now, to compound his injuries, he was financially beaten to a purple-y pulp as well. He, like many before him, had become another victim of the tyranny of the weak.

I’m not trying to turn this into a rich vs. poor issue; this is solely about being responsible. Driving is a privilege – not a right – and must be treated as such. If you choose to do it, especially if you intend on making a living from it, you must accept the responsibilities as well as the dangers involved. What irks me more than those blasted pink fences is that a lot of drivers, especially public utility drivers who always claim they have no money, drive like they have the sultan of Brunei signing checks for them. They weave in and out, stop randomly on the fast lane and squeeze past you at the traffic lights like the road was named after them. And only when they hit you do they cry poverty.

My point, which I’ve taken as long to get to as a traffic cop trying to explain what swerving actually means, is that every motorist (pls. note that this includes bikes, tricycles and any type of vehicle – motorized or otherwise – using our roads) should be required by law to take responsibility for their actions by being at the very least insured for it. It cannot remain optional; because just like ABS and airbags, most people do not see the value of it until it’s too late. Most traffic altercations start getting ugly because neither party wants to admit guilt for fear of having to pay. If you’re insured, it becomes less personal, and therefore, less hassle.

A couple of days before Christmas last year, in the car park of Park Square, two cars collided in the ramp leading down to the cashier. Obviously they couldn’t come to terms with who was to blame so they refused to move their vehicles until the authorities turned up. This caused the traffic to bank up four levels high. I almost spent the twelve days of Christmas in that bloody car park trying to get out. Now, try adding some insurance into this story. It could have all ended differently.

And the benefits of mandatory insurance extend further than just plain accidents. It could improve our driving environment dramatically.

Just think, instead of this coding scheme or other traffic reducing efforts that the MMDA or LTO think up, we could inevitably restrict the amount of vehicles using our roads simply by insisting that each one be required by law to carry with it at least third party property insurance. I’m not talking about the one they sell you at the LTO, which has about as much coverage as a calamansi leaf placed over a grown man’s private parts, I’m suggesting that it be mandatory to pay an insurance premium on top of your driver’s license fee or vehicle’s registration fee that will cover you in the event of an accident that causes damage to someone else’s property.

This way, we could be certain that every registered vehicle or licensed driver to leave the LTO would be covered. Not just people like Chris. Worse case scenario, if we can’t reduce the quantity of traffic, at least we’ll improve the quality.

**_Cathy_** · September 26th, 2022 08:41 PM

Stigg ma, long article but worth the read. I think you'll agree with JD.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

**Stigg ma** · September 26th, 2022 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by _Cathy_

Stigg ma, long article but worth the read. I think you'll agree with JD.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

done reading, ang lesson ay abusado ang mga squatters (mga mahihirap), mga wala disiplina at responsibilidad kaya nga sila nag hihirap. the world is unfair, use it to your advantage ang labanan...

**Stigg ma** · October 1st, 2022 12:01 PM

akala ko gobyerno lang ang umaapi sa tao bayan, pati pala mga mahihirap, pero meron din mga mayayaman na inaapi ang mga mahihirap

in short, majority ng pinoy wala pakealam

https://fb.watch/fTpJIf6Ax0/

Log into Facebook | Facebook

**Stigg ma** · October 1st, 2022 12:47 PM

buhay man o patay, mahirap ka man o mayaman, pwede mag counterflow kase optional lang naman ang bataas sa pinas

https://fb.watch/fTsp7xq984/

Log into Facebook | Facebook