The state of traffic law enforcement

Are we ever going to reach a point where the authorities implement sensible and proactive road traffic measures to prevent carnage on our roads? Since 1997, the Department of Transport has launched a series of Arrive Alive campaigns, aimed particularly at reducing carnage on the roads. The success of these campaigns is debatable. There isn’t a specific science to attribute any drop in number of road accidents to the campaigns.

The Arrive Alive campaign was flawed from inception. This largely reactive measure to serious traffic problems was doomed to fail for reasons that become obvious below.

The main objectives of the campaign were (1) to reduce the number of road traffic accidents in general — and fatalities in particular — by 5 % compared with the same period the previous year; (2) to improve road user compliance with traffic laws; and (3) to forge an improved working relationship between traffic authorities at the various levels of government.

What this meant was the deployment of traffic officers to patrol already congested highways during peak holiday seasons, setting up ineffectual roadblocks and hiding in bushes with radar guns. The intended outcome of this charade was arrests followed by exorbitant fines that did a great deal in helping local traffic authorities meet their revenue targets; sadly, fatalities remained less affected and at staggering levels.

Traffic law enforcement in this country has never appeared to be about protecting motorists, but rather about serving the fiscal interests of local traffic authorities. We should not fault the government when establishing sources of revenue; the problem is when the authorities are seen to be running get-rich-quick schemes at the expense of motorists and when there is lack of innovation to implement preventative measures against traffic violations.

The laziness and the ever-expanding waistlines of traffic officials who spend their workday inactive and hiding in bushes, manning speed cameras, can be attributed to this pathetic form of law enforcement.

The Department of Transport has been most pathetic when it comes to the maintenance of national roads. Large stretches of many of these roads are unsafe, neglected and death traps. Potholes — in some instances large craters — are a common feature of many of our roads. These are arguably one of the major causes of road accidents, perhaps followed by brainless motorists who are reckless behind the wheel.

There are countries that are being innovative in order at least to prevent the number of road accidents, along with associated injuries and fatalities, and improve the travelling experience of motorists. These countries have experimented with — and some have implemented — variable speed limits. This concept is more responsive to prevailing conditions at any given time, such as road congestion and weather changes. With our rigid traffic measures, even when there is a downpour of rain, the speed limit on national roads remains 120km/h. Experience suggests that common sense is not always widely distributed among drivers; there are always imbeciles who will travel at that speed regardless.

Variable speed limits require the deployment of technology, to which we appear already to have access. The use of various types of sensors to measure traffic flow and weather conditions, and to adjust the speed limit accordingly on electronic boards, is a must. This has been implemented on the M5 highway in London. Germany started with manually operated signs in 1965 on the A8 Munich-Salzburg and went electronic in later years. There are many other countries that have implemented this system.

This can be immediately implemented on toll roads that are regularly maintained and safe to travel at speeds greater than the current sleep-inducing 120km/h. There is no reason why, on a calm day when the road is not overflowing with crawling traffic, those blessed with the luxury of piloting high-powered machines should not be allowed to unleash their vehicles’ full potential. Otherwise, the government might as well criminalise the possession and/or ownership of vehicles capable of exceeding 120km/h.

There have been numerous debates in the past about speed limits and modern-day cars that are capable of travelling at eye-popping speeds; the authorities continue to maintain their “shock and awe” strategy to discourage any debate on revisiting speed limits, which were set when donkey carts were the common mode of transport and the majority of cars could barely make it past 90km/h. Common sense dictates that traffic laws should accommodate the behaviour of most motorists and environmental factors, instead of laws that arbitrarily criminalise the majority of motorists and encourage violations.

The indubitable truth is that the authorities refuse to acknowledge the fact that car manufacturers have invested millions of dollars in researching ways to enhance the safety aspects of their products. Modern vehicles now have systems that use information about the external environment to change their response and improve the safety of their occupants before or during a crash.

Modern vehicles are built using materials that are capable of absorbing energy in the unfortunate event of a collision; some are constructed with safety cages specifically designed to protect vehicle occupants. Formula One drivers who escape high-speed crashes unscathed owe their lives to these safety cages and carbon-fibre, which absorbs energy.

The Department of Transport and local traffic authorities are not investing their energies in finding innovative measures that would ensure increased compliance and reduce carnage on our roads. Then again, they would have to find new sources of revenue.