This Is Not The Way! The Ire of the Pedestrians and the Antithesis of Safety for the Drivers Crossing the Lane of Peril

Students of the Dakilang Pamantasan, or any regular pedestrians, are well aware of the options available when crossing the street, especially along the Tibanga road. There are pedestrian crossings near a hospital, one near major fast-food establishments, and one overpass. Safety, convenience, and humanity should always be the top concern regarding our public roads and spaces.

A few days ago, a poll discussion of a removal of a pedestrian cross near the University raged online. Recently online posts have surfaced with concerned netizens asking for the status of the said crossing. No statement was released by the authorities in charge, whether it is undergoing a repainting or a total removal. The crossing in question is the one that connects two major fast-food establishments in the area near the University—and is used by pedestrians and students whose destination is the University or somewhere along Tibanga. Meanwhile, the photos circulating online gave netizens the impression of the crossing being removed.

Frankly, removing the pedestrian crossing is left much to be desired. The action gave the impression that pedestrians, in general, should use another method for crossing other than the said lane as the road is made exclusive for drivers. Again, while there are alternative pedestrian crossings and an overpass is relatively close to the area, they are not as convenient and accessible as the crossing in question.

Here’s the point

The pedestrians are not careless. Last 16 April 2023, an incident occurred with the same pedestrian when a motorcyclist incidentally hit two IITians while treading the pedestrian cross. Unfortunately, this is not the first time. What was surprising was that there was a blame game among the Public and netizens. Some think it is the students to blame because they are not carefully crossing the road or watching for vehicles passing or wanting to pass by. Conversely, it is the motocyclist’s fault for not slowing down when approaching the pedestrian crossing—after all, it is a school zone.

The value of carefully crossing any road is always there. Unless the individual is deranged and looking for trouble or any other logical explanation, that is a completely different story. Nevertheless, the point is, students, or any regular pedestrian, will tread any road with much concern for their life!

But the pedestrians are looking for convenience. Imagine you were asked to go to the market one day to purchase the materials needed for a project; you were asked to go alone because others were too preoccupied with something else. You only had enough money to go to the market, purchase the materials, and return, leaving no more room for a special ride to deliver you safely to your door. When you were finished at the market, you need to cross to the other side to get to your destination. Simultaneously, you need to carry a 20 kilo-sack of milled rice in your shoulder with your left arm to support it and two other sacks filled with heavy products from the market in your right. Under the sweltering heat, you treaded the cross, but you had not noticed a jeepney speeding its way, and seconds later, you found yourself lying on the ground with crimson liquid spilled all over.

All of this is because you were too preoccupied with carrying your baggages and wanted to cross swiftly. After all, it is heavy. All of this is because you were not careful and were reckless.

Is that the case? Crossing the road involves not only safety; it should also concern itself with convenience and humanity. What must be problematized here is not only the individual but also the traffic enforcers in effect. Where are our traffic enforcement authorities? Should it not be that when we cross the road, traffic enforcers are nearby at whichever time of the day? Be it in the morning, afternoon, or early evening, especially during rush hours. Also notwithstanding the national highway status, the fact that it is a school zone is self executory—the driver has to minimize her/his speed.

What message do we give when authorities remove a pedestrian cross? Perhaps it is inconsequential to other people’s time and privilege. However, this is the power we gave them we are talking about. What seems to be a small step now may lead to bigger and eventually insurmountable public troubles. If they can remove a pedestrian lane, what stops them from removing the other crossings and leaving the overpass because it is ‘safe’ without much regard for others? How about our community of people with disabilities (PWD) or the older generation folks? “There are traffic enforces who will assist them,” they reply; however, are they there when they are needed? Our enforcement agency is too byzantine that it cannot sufficiently provide for the basic needs of the pedestrians.

Moreover, despite being illuminated every night, the overpass fails to provide a sense of safety and comfort to the Public. Several snatching incidents have occurred, highlighting the lack of security measures, i.e., surveillance tapes. Basic hygiene is neglected, too, making it an unappealing option for pedestrians. The notion that safety can be achieved through an illuminated overpass is appreciated but is not encompassing, as it does not address the underlying issue of delinquency. The nauseating odor that permeates the area undermines any sense of safety that the lighting and safe passage may provide.

And what about our drivers? Are we making a mockery to our people that with the removal of the crossings, drivers’ are then permitted to speed up to their heart’s content? Crossings exist for a reason. They exist for the safety of our pedestrians and the safety of our drivers. Imagine removing the pedestrian, and all drivers would speed up, thinking they can do whatever they want. Discounting the earlier statement that pedestrians tread the road carefully with their life in mind, what if pedestrians eventually start crossing the road, notwithstanding the perils it bring or the legal repercussions they will face? What legal safety net can we assure our public transportation drivers, then? Perhaps the pedestrian will be sanctioned for illegally crossing the street, but what if the pedestrian dies? Or is seriously hurt? Will the driver remunerate the damage? What about the driver’s conscience, can the driver swallow the fact that she/he has ran someone over possibly killing them, and scarring driver for life? Are we not concerned over their mental health too?

This is not simple matter. This has now become an issue of deviance. Our Public, we ask you, will removing a pedestrian crossing or all pedestrian crossing around the area result in a more overpass-using and conforming community? Or will it lead to more deviance when crossing the streets? Perhaps, this is not the way!

About the Author

Reggy Bartido

Reggy H. Bartido is a Senior BA (Sociology) undergraduate student at the Mindanao State University - Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT). Currently, Mr. Bartido is the Editor-in-Chief of CASSayuran - the Official Student Publication of the College of Arts and Social Sciences (CASS) of MSU-IIT. Mr. Bartido's undergraduate thesis centres around Environmental Sociology studies and Sustainable Development. Additionally, he is keenly interested in Youth Studies and Political Sociology, where he continues exploring new insights and perspectives. Likewise, Mr. Bartido was a participant of the Ateneo School of Government and participate PH sponsored training on Campus Media: Media Ethics and Democracy in Action held at Ateneo De Manila University, last November 2022. The training was attended by 30 campus journalists over the country. Mr. Bartido was also given a participant status at the SAPA Mindanao Workshop for Journalism last February 2023 during the FEMSUSCO Meet.