Skip to main content

Top 5 Reaons Why I No longer Use My Car to Work/School


 Top 5 Reaons Why I No longer Use My Car to Work/School


Lorraine Lao ||: repost from Hey Raine Blog || November 06, 2017

Being in a small city it is never really necessary that you have to bring your own car, where ever you go to work or run some errands and I rather choose to ride a Tricycle even if my family owns more than one car. My friends wonder why I am not it going to work and let it stay at the house unused, they said commuting don’t suite me and makes me don’t look good, so here are my top 5 reasons why:

 

Photo By ||: Lorraine Lao

1.      1.Distance – surigao city is so small that you can just walk to get to another store.
 Surigao City, with a total land area of 245.34 km2 (94.73 sq mi), is marked by rolling hills that gently buffers its eastern and western boundaries.
Sometimes I get ashamed for taking a ride just to go to the other block due to the scorching sun.

2. Parking Space – Since the city is too small it is really hard to get a good parking spot. I rather pay a small amount of fare taking tricycle than paying a parking ticket that will cost me a thousand.
You won’t also worry where you should park or how far you can park. Ride a tricycle
   
3.Time Consuming – Bringing your own car may give you a good impression and riding in a tricycle can be a little shabby but saves you time and money. Traffic is really a serious problem but thanks to the some tricycle drivers they know a good and quick way for you to arrive in your destination in no time and it save you from the drama of traffic.  They know the road and they know when and where traffic will occur, that’s a huge convenience especially for a newbie driver like me. They often save me a lot of extra time ahead.
It saves money of course because you won’t be stuck in traffic and waste a lot of fuel instead you just pay a small amount of fair.
   
4.Thief- I was victimized by thefts. They force to open the cab I used while I have a class. They took all the things I own in the cab and it didn't happened just once but twice, on same area near at my school at the back of a grocery store here in Surigao.

5.Saves Money – the last and most important reason why I rather choose a shabby ride going work or somewhere else in the city than using or bringing a car because fuel now is so expensive and you’ll beat up your car.  Constant trip with your car consumes a lot of fuel (fuel nowadays are keep on hurting your pocket) compare paying a 9.00 pesos fare. Constant usage of your car would beat up the parts of it that goes on for early replacements and repairs.

I don’t mind being called a cheapskate because I keep on commuting (tricycle/jeep) going to work, because it still does the work on sending me safe and on time where ever I wanted to go. That leaves me with a lot of extra money to spend on other important things and less stress.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 APEX MINING CO., INC., vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.,(SEM) et. al CASE DIGEST

G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 APEX MINING CO., INC., vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.,(SEM) et. al  G.R. No. 152619-20 BALITE COMMUNAL PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE vs. southeast mindanao gold mining corp.  G.R. No. 152870-71 THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS, THE HON. VICTOR O. RAMOS (Chairman), UNDERSECRETARY VIRGILIO MARCELO (Member) and DIRECTOR HORACIO RAMOS (Member) vs. southeast mindanao gold mining corporation  FACTS: A motion for reconsideration was filed by SEM. The Assailed Decision held that the assignment of Exploration Permit (EP) 133 in favor of SEM violated one of the conditions stipulated in the permit. It also ruled that the transfer of EP 133 violated Presidential Decree No. 463, which requires that the assignment of a mining right be made with the prior approval of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Moreover, the Assailed Decision pointed out that EP 133 expired by non-renew...
Post a Comment
Read more

G.R. No. 115104 Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev. Co., et al v. Court of Appeals CASE DIGEST

Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev. Co., et al v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 115104 October 12, 1998 FACTS: The Supreme Court recognized the possessory right of Macawiwili and Omico over mining claims in Benguet as against Philex Mining Corp. On the surface of these mining claims,Philex owned improvements consisting of roads, facilities, and bunkhouses that were used byPhilex in its other mining claims. Philex sought to expropriate the surface of the area wherethese improvements were located pursuant to Section 59 of PD 463. HELD: The land cannot be expropriated. Expropriation demands that the land be private land.When the Supreme Court awarded the possessory rights over the land to Macawiwili andOmico, it stripped the land of its private character and gave it its public character – to be utilizedfor mining operations. Property already devoted to public use may be expropriated only if donedirectly by the national legislature or under a specific grant of authority to the d...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fernandez vs HRET CASE DIGEST GR No 187478

Fernandez vs HRET | GR No 187478 | December 21, 2009 Topic: House of Representatives > Residency Requirement  Facts:  On the May 14, 2007 elections, petitioner filed for candidacy as Representative of the First Legislative District of the Province of Laguna. In his Certificate of Candidacy, he indicated that he is a resident of Sta. Rosa City, Laguna. Private respondent sought the cancellation of petitioner’s COC and the latter’s disqualification as a candidate on the ground of an alleged material misrepresentation in his COC regarding his place of residence, because during past elections, he had declared Pagsanjan, Laguna as his address, and Pagsanjan was located in the Fourth Legislative District of the Province of Laguna. Private respondent likewise claimed that petitioner maintained another house in Cabuyao, Laguna, which was also outside the First District. The petition, however, was dismissed by COMELEC for lack of merit.  On June 27, 2007, petitioner was...
Post a Comment
Read more