Haga click para ver un catalogo de artículos que mencionan motoristas que huyen deciden eludir -no recurrir- a las autoridades: INDICE
Fechas: 1 Enero 2009 - 31 Diciembre 2010 (~un artículo por semana)
Método: Búsquedas en LPG y EDDH con palabras: motoristas, conductores, fuga, huir, huyó, abandonar, abandonó (y seleccionando relevantes artículos, eliminando duplicados)
Click here to see a catalogue of articles from Salvadoran press that mention drivers that chose to evade the police: INDEX
Date range: January 1, 2009 - December 31, 2010 (~one article per week)
Method: Simple searches in Salvadoran newspaper websites for articles containing key words: driver (and synonyms), flee, abandon (and synonyms), then selecting for relevant articles, eliminating double-coverage
lunes, 30 de agosto de 2010
miércoles, 6 de enero de 2010
Cultural Phenomena or Signs of an Archaic System?
Español: ¿Fenómeno Cultural o Señales de un Sistema Perverso?
While my first Op-Ed “The Cost of Doing the Right Thing” (below) described a personal experience, this follow-up piece aims to stimulate further debate and focuses on defining the fundamental problem and suggest possible solutions.
The Dilemma:
¿Should I stay or should I run? That’s the dilemma drivers face when they hit pedestrians. Looking over the corpse of a man I had just hit, I dialed 911 and cooperated fully with the authorities. What more can you expect of a driver in a tragic accident?
The Incentives:
[El Salvador’s] transit system, on the other hand, requires that the few of us that decide to stay do jail time, at least for 72 hours. We also incur in legal, conciliatory and transportation expenses until our confiscated vehicles and licenses are returned, often over a month later. The second paragraph of Article 177 of the Transit Code , in summary, states that “If the driver does not flee, shows no sign of drug use, informs the authorities and takes the victim to a hospital … s/he will not be taken into custody...” While the article’s language clearly intends to encourage citizens to behave responsibly and discourage hit & runs, it accomplishes the exact opposite. When the pedestrian dies on the scene, s/he can no longer be helped, so the driver must go to jail. That is, the few that decide to stick around go to jail.
What happens to those who flee? Let’s be honest: nothing. Consequently, only 10% of drivers in such circumstances reveal themselves, according to the prosecutor in my case, a striking signal of the need for reform. If only 10% of salaried citizens actually paid taxes, would we not reform fiscal policies? If our employee only showed up 10% of the time, would we not explore alternatives?
Reducing the Tendency to Hit & Run:
The same logic applies to traffic accidents. The goal of reducing the tendency to hit & run appears overwhelming for those that consider the decision as primarily a cultural phenomenon. I couldn’t disagree more. Drivers [in El Salvador] with nothing to hide decide to run not because of the culture, but primarily because they fear the practice of jailing citizens in cases of involuntary manslaughter. In essence, the policy leads good people to evade responsibility.
Could a different policy incentivize more responsibility and transparency? There are alternatives like bail or passport confiscation. In the United States, for example, the police on the scene gather statements from the driver, witnesses, test the driver for alcohol, and check the driving record of the perpetrator. Then they make a decision. If the evidence leads the officer to think the driver had been negligent, they detain the driver. If, on the other hand, the officers believe the driver behaved reasonably, they file a report and send the driver home. In the US, a much lower percentage of drivers flee. Do gringos stay because of they are “good people” or because they know that coming forward does not equate to risky jail time and that fleeing would greatly aggravate their punishment?
In addition to modifying the policy, more and better use of technology can offer better results at a reasonable cost. Installing cameras in those intersections with the highest indices of human and material loss could facilitate transparency and the administration of justice in situations where confusion and “survival of the slickest” attitudes currently prevail. Such hard evidence will help protect pedestrians from those that attempt to “escape” and drivers from extortion and false accusations of negligence. This need for transparency applies throughout our lives, from the accountability of the Presidential House (currently a hot topic in ES) to more commonplace situations like traffic accidents and filing taxes.
Conclusion:
Transparent and responsible behavior does not stem from our genes, but from our upbringing and relevant public policies. If we want citizens to behave responsibly, let’s create and implement policies that incentivize responsible behavior and punish evasive and elusive decisions
Gian Paolo Einaudi
Originally published in La Prensa Gráfica on January 8th, 2010: ¿Fenómeno Cultural o Temor a Las Consecuencias?
While my first Op-Ed “The Cost of Doing the Right Thing” (below) described a personal experience, this follow-up piece aims to stimulate further debate and focuses on defining the fundamental problem and suggest possible solutions.
The Dilemma:
¿Should I stay or should I run? That’s the dilemma drivers face when they hit pedestrians. Looking over the corpse of a man I had just hit, I dialed 911 and cooperated fully with the authorities. What more can you expect of a driver in a tragic accident?
The Incentives:
[El Salvador’s] transit system, on the other hand, requires that the few of us that decide to stay do jail time, at least for 72 hours. We also incur in legal, conciliatory and transportation expenses until our confiscated vehicles and licenses are returned, often over a month later. The second paragraph of Article 177 of the Transit Code , in summary, states that “If the driver does not flee, shows no sign of drug use, informs the authorities and takes the victim to a hospital … s/he will not be taken into custody...” While the article’s language clearly intends to encourage citizens to behave responsibly and discourage hit & runs, it accomplishes the exact opposite. When the pedestrian dies on the scene, s/he can no longer be helped, so the driver must go to jail. That is, the few that decide to stick around go to jail.
What happens to those who flee? Let’s be honest: nothing. Consequently, only 10% of drivers in such circumstances reveal themselves, according to the prosecutor in my case, a striking signal of the need for reform. If only 10% of salaried citizens actually paid taxes, would we not reform fiscal policies? If our employee only showed up 10% of the time, would we not explore alternatives?
Reducing the Tendency to Hit & Run:
The same logic applies to traffic accidents. The goal of reducing the tendency to hit & run appears overwhelming for those that consider the decision as primarily a cultural phenomenon. I couldn’t disagree more. Drivers [in El Salvador] with nothing to hide decide to run not because of the culture, but primarily because they fear the practice of jailing citizens in cases of involuntary manslaughter. In essence, the policy leads good people to evade responsibility.
Could a different policy incentivize more responsibility and transparency? There are alternatives like bail or passport confiscation. In the United States, for example, the police on the scene gather statements from the driver, witnesses, test the driver for alcohol, and check the driving record of the perpetrator. Then they make a decision. If the evidence leads the officer to think the driver had been negligent, they detain the driver. If, on the other hand, the officers believe the driver behaved reasonably, they file a report and send the driver home. In the US, a much lower percentage of drivers flee. Do gringos stay because of they are “good people” or because they know that coming forward does not equate to risky jail time and that fleeing would greatly aggravate their punishment?
In addition to modifying the policy, more and better use of technology can offer better results at a reasonable cost. Installing cameras in those intersections with the highest indices of human and material loss could facilitate transparency and the administration of justice in situations where confusion and “survival of the slickest” attitudes currently prevail. Such hard evidence will help protect pedestrians from those that attempt to “escape” and drivers from extortion and false accusations of negligence. This need for transparency applies throughout our lives, from the accountability of the Presidential House (currently a hot topic in ES) to more commonplace situations like traffic accidents and filing taxes.
Conclusion:
Transparent and responsible behavior does not stem from our genes, but from our upbringing and relevant public policies. If we want citizens to behave responsibly, let’s create and implement policies that incentivize responsible behavior and punish evasive and elusive decisions
Gian Paolo Einaudi
Originally published in La Prensa Gráfica on January 8th, 2010: ¿Fenómeno Cultural o Temor a Las Consecuencias?
The Cost of Doing the Right Thing
Español: Hacer Lo Correcto Sale Caro
A few weeks ago, while driving along the Panamerican highway, I hit and killed a pedestrian. Contrary to what common sense dictates in El Salvador, I decided to stay. The consequences of this decision have led me to explore the behavior elicited by the policy of detaining drivers in fatal accidents for 72 hours. As a foreigner living in El Salvador for over ten years, I’ve had the opportunity to experience different transit policies and observe the systemic behaviors they produce. With this article, I aspire to stimulate a constructive dialogue on the conditions that lead may Salvadoran citizens to flee the scenes of serious accidents.
The Circumstances of the Accident:
As for the circumstances of the accident, I had been driving under the speed limit, in my lane, and had no alcohol in my bloodstream. The victim, allegedly intoxicated, had chosen to ignore two pasarelas, jump over a meter-high concrete wall and dart barefoot across a highway with oncoming traffic at dusk. According to the local police, pedestrians die in this strip on a weekly basis.
The Decision to Stay and its Consequences:
In the seconds that followed the impact, I perceived two exclusive alternatives. I could stay, facing the consequences of the accident or I could flee, avoiding a potentially violent reaction from the victim or his friends, eluding capture, economic costs, and time-consuming hassles that could result from reconciling. I decided to stay.
The 911 operator’s response to my call signaled what I considered to be a weakness in the system. When I told him what had just occurred, he replied, “We’ll send a unit” and then urgently suggested “Sir, get the hell out of there.” When I share with Salvadorans my decision to stay, many either compliment my ethical behavior or laugh at my naive faith in the legal system. Some argue that “that’s just how it is,” or “that’s just the culture here.” I couldn’t disagree more. The Salvadoran culture (or any culture per se) does not foster fearful behavior or unwillingness to assume responsibility in difficult situations.
In Theory and In Practice:
As structured today, the transit policy leads people to the logical conclusion that their best option -without a doubt- is to flee the scene of serious accidents. The systemic economic and personal repercussions of the policy lead good people to behave irresponsibly insofar as civil behavior is essentially punished. As a result of my decision to submit myself to the system, I was detained in police custody, absent from work and family for three days. I paid the family members of the victim despite his extreme negligence and incurred in transportation costs while my vehicle (and license) were confiscated for over two months.
When I ask, “What is the purpose of detaining drivers for 72 hours?” I receive two types of explanations: the first claims that the jail-time represents, in theory, a period of investigation when lawyers also negotiate with the victims family members. The second argues that the driver is detained to keep him/her from fleeing the country before having a) been proven not liable or b) paid compensated the victim’s family. In practice, according to the prosecution, 90% of drivers under similar circumstances flee the scene.
Conclusion:
To those of you with influence in legal circles or agents of change in general, I ask: “What would happen to this tendency if such civil disputes were resolved without penal punishment? How can the legal system incentivize more responsible and civil behavior?”
Gian Paolo Einaudi
Originally published in La Prensa Gráfica on October 10th, 2009: Hacer Lo Correcto Sale Caro
A few weeks ago, while driving along the Panamerican highway, I hit and killed a pedestrian. Contrary to what common sense dictates in El Salvador, I decided to stay. The consequences of this decision have led me to explore the behavior elicited by the policy of detaining drivers in fatal accidents for 72 hours. As a foreigner living in El Salvador for over ten years, I’ve had the opportunity to experience different transit policies and observe the systemic behaviors they produce. With this article, I aspire to stimulate a constructive dialogue on the conditions that lead may Salvadoran citizens to flee the scenes of serious accidents.
The Circumstances of the Accident:
As for the circumstances of the accident, I had been driving under the speed limit, in my lane, and had no alcohol in my bloodstream. The victim, allegedly intoxicated, had chosen to ignore two pasarelas, jump over a meter-high concrete wall and dart barefoot across a highway with oncoming traffic at dusk. According to the local police, pedestrians die in this strip on a weekly basis.
The Decision to Stay and its Consequences:
In the seconds that followed the impact, I perceived two exclusive alternatives. I could stay, facing the consequences of the accident or I could flee, avoiding a potentially violent reaction from the victim or his friends, eluding capture, economic costs, and time-consuming hassles that could result from reconciling. I decided to stay.
The 911 operator’s response to my call signaled what I considered to be a weakness in the system. When I told him what had just occurred, he replied, “We’ll send a unit” and then urgently suggested “Sir, get the hell out of there.” When I share with Salvadorans my decision to stay, many either compliment my ethical behavior or laugh at my naive faith in the legal system. Some argue that “that’s just how it is,” or “that’s just the culture here.” I couldn’t disagree more. The Salvadoran culture (or any culture per se) does not foster fearful behavior or unwillingness to assume responsibility in difficult situations.
In Theory and In Practice:
As structured today, the transit policy leads people to the logical conclusion that their best option -without a doubt- is to flee the scene of serious accidents. The systemic economic and personal repercussions of the policy lead good people to behave irresponsibly insofar as civil behavior is essentially punished. As a result of my decision to submit myself to the system, I was detained in police custody, absent from work and family for three days. I paid the family members of the victim despite his extreme negligence and incurred in transportation costs while my vehicle (and license) were confiscated for over two months.
When I ask, “What is the purpose of detaining drivers for 72 hours?” I receive two types of explanations: the first claims that the jail-time represents, in theory, a period of investigation when lawyers also negotiate with the victims family members. The second argues that the driver is detained to keep him/her from fleeing the country before having a) been proven not liable or b) paid compensated the victim’s family. In practice, according to the prosecution, 90% of drivers under similar circumstances flee the scene.
Conclusion:
To those of you with influence in legal circles or agents of change in general, I ask: “What would happen to this tendency if such civil disputes were resolved without penal punishment? How can the legal system incentivize more responsible and civil behavior?”
Gian Paolo Einaudi
Originally published in La Prensa Gráfica on October 10th, 2009: Hacer Lo Correcto Sale Caro
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)