Frankly speaking, many of us prefer the loose rather than strict enforcement of traffic rules and regulations.

So much so, many of us won’t admit we see the rules merely as traffic traps, something we can easily talk or bribe our way out of. A case of catch me if you can.

On that score, traffic authorities and enforcers don’t do any better either. They too seemingly encourage the trap them scheme. 

If the authorities weren’t complicit in fostering the trap and release system, Metro Manila officials would have cracked down on mulcting traffic enforcers long ago. 

Anyway, unless we look at traffic rules as something to be followed, the traffic horrors are going to stay with us. 

The same enforcement versus entrapment conundrum, in fact, remains the unresolved point of the Supreme Court’s partial lifting last Tuesday of its 2022 restraining order on camera-based enforcement of traffic rules on Metro Manila’s major roads.

To get you up to speed, the High Court partially lifted the MMDA’s no-contact apprehension policy (NCAP) on Epifanio de los Santos (EDSA), C5, Buendia, Roxas Boulevard, Marcos Highway, Katipunan Avenue, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon Avenue and West Avenue. It will take effect on Monday, 26 May.

In these areas, the MMDA can now use advanced video systems like closed circuit cameras, digital cameras, and other such gadgets to capture traffic rule breakers and penalize them with huge fines using the captured images as evidence. The Land Transportation Office (LTO) will assist the MMDA in tracking down the vehicles of the errant drivers. 

The Supreme Court, however, hasn’t lifted the ban on the NCAP policies of the various Metro Manila local governments. 

Here, the High Court may have taken note of the intense public criticism that since localized NCAPs were mostly outsourced to private companies, these suspiciously served primarily as revenue generating tools for LGUs rather than as enforcement tools. 

For its part, the MMDA was understandably elated that the High Court saw the argument that its NCAP version was different, that it was a necessary tool in addressing the difficulties of enforcing traffic rules on major roads. 

To bolster its argument, the MMDA said it did not have enough people to cope with the increasing number of traffic violators, noting that last March it documented 12,566 violators in its jurisdiction, above the 9,500 monthly average it recorded before the NCAP’s suspension. 

The MMDA also said the NCAP is particularly crucial in coping with the expected traffic nightmares once EDSA’s massive rehabilitation and the 17-month closure of the crucial Guadalupe Bridge start. 

Yet, while MMDA says the NCAP generally marks a major step toward traffic enforcement on EDSA and other major roads, it cautions that “it is not by itself sufficient to address Metro Manila’s worsening traffic situation.”

Admitting, therefore, that the NCAP is a small step in addressing the traffic mess means the government and we all still cannot breeze through our roads anytime soon.

Much work still needs to be done in addressing complex traffic issues such as traffic surveillance violates privacy, the lack of traffic courts, confusing road signs and regulations, unregulated public road works, and imposed penalties which don’t change driver behavior.