Driving in a Backwards Country

A fter living in Indonesia for well over a decade, I have come to accept the driving habits of Indonesians. I don't bat an eye when drivers cut me off or merge into my lane just ahead of me. These are just some examples of what happens all of the time out in the traffic of Jakarta or any other city. But a first-time visitor from the West may have a different opinion. Let us see if this is justified, and see if it proves to be a case of a backwards country with the wrong system in place.

Western driving, especially the American version that I grew up with, is based on the premise of Right of Way. Drivers either have the right of way, or they don't. If you don't you must yield to the person who does. Thinking about this carefully, it would seem to be a kind of universal law, since two cars can't be in the same place at the same time if their drivers want to get home for dinner. Basic timesharing. There needs to be a system that ordains who goes ahead and who does not. Simple. Isn't this the same the world over?

No. We'll start with something simple. The Indonesian driver has a very differentconcept of right of way. Here the focus is not on who has the right to move, but rather who has the responsibility to not move, to yield to others. Now, this system also has to operate to keep its drivers coming home for dinner as well, since even here, as elsewhere in this universe, two cars had better not be in the same place at the same time. Newton, or Einstein, or somebody, said so.

So is there a difference? Isn't it just like saying that a glass is half full or half empty? Well no, it is not. It has to do with focus. Western driving assumes everyone is following the rules, which clearly give some the right of way while others must give up that right. That grand assumption is the source of errors and accidents that keep judges and insurance companies busy establishing who was really at fault when two cars defy physics and try very hard to be in the same place at the same time.

The Indonesian driver doesn't have to bother with these hair-splitting matters. It is simple: yield when someone else forces their way into your path. Never mind that it delays you and you have to take evasive action (although a squealing of brakes as a result of any other driver's actions is considered to be a breach of some unwritten rule; the trick is to take command of an opportunity without causing undue surprise to the other drivers whose responsibility it is to yield for you--if you are sure that they can safely slow down or, at worst, stop you have the right to make your move). The slight delay imposed on you will be paid back when you next have a similar opportunity to fill a small gap in traffic. It is, it seems, most equitable: all but the most timid drivers spend about half of the time yielding and the other half getting others to yield. A perfect give and take.

The Indonesian driver need not take a driving theory class where defensive driving is taught. Driving is a continual balancing act of defense and offense, of yielding their place and stealing a new place. The absolutely great part of this system is that it assumes a negative state, a state in which both drivers first and foremost are ready to yield to the other. Split-second uncertainty here means that neither will make a potentially dangerous move.

The Western system, quite reversed from this as it may seem by now, assumes a positive state in which two drivers may occasionally, even for a split second, think that they have that fabulous, law-ordaned right of way. The unerring assurance that they do have that right is manifest in increased foot pressure on the accelerator and an attitude that seems to say "look out, I have the right of way here." Surprises can result: rubber marks can be imprinted onto the roadway for police to measure, Einstein's Laws of Relativity and the laws of physics can be proven, and people can indeed miss dinner.

People, being imperfect creatures, often forget the complex rules that must exist to uphold a right-of-way system and, regrettably, make errors of judgement. A system that is based on a responsibility to yield doesn't need many rules to keep everyone enveloped in a certain cloud of safety regardless how haphazard and unregulated it may seem upon the first encounter by a "Right-of-Wayer". It moves heavy traffic rather well, through intersections where there is no traffic light, or too often where the light is out of order, through converging and diverging flows at a roundabout (traffic circle) and around slower vehicles on narrow undivided highways.

There is at attempt underway in Indonesia to fix what I see isn't so badly broken, to paint no-passing lines on highways, to put in more traffic lights, to put up other road warning signs, and to educate drivers to follow rules that most people do not know and were never tested for (licenses can easily be bought, sans test). It is just another one of the many attempts at Westernization. But why, I ask, adopt a system that comes from a place that is so backwards? Will it bring with it a pervasive sickness that is totally absent here: Road Rage? I hope not.