AARTO Fleet Solutions

A Focus on Speed Enforcement

Dennis Jackson

24^th May 2012

The focal point in traffic law enforcement seems to be on speeding offences to the virtual exclusion of all other transgressions. Throughout South Africa It seems patently obvious that the reasoning behind it is that speeding has the outstanding potential for immense revenue accumulation for the benefit of government coffers.

The unconstrained revenue collection presently carried out is to the exclusion of all else? It has become an effortless way of raising funds for the municipality and does not require much intellect to implement.

In fact, more lives are being lost, because the emphasis in law enforcement is slanted towards speeding only and more critical traffic issues such as road conditions, road signs and potholes are being swept under the carpet.

If the vast number of camera speed traps that are presently set up and hidden by devious means is taken into account, then some crucial questions arise. Is the practice of concealment of this apparatus in line with the guidelines and laws governing the implementation of speed enforcement?

Concurrently, what, if anything, constructive is being achieved regarding the numerous un-roadworthy vehicles commuting daily on our roads, drivers and passengers not wearing seatbelts, motorists chatting away on cellular phones whilst driving at high speed, the disregard for stop signs, overtaking on barrier lines and a host of other moving violations?

Regrettably, there is a generally low level of compliance with the majority of road rules along most routes. Correspondingly, it is a sad fact that many motorists do exceed the speed limit by a vast margin and they should be made to atone for their sins. However, why impose such ludicrous speed limits of 60 or 80 kph on wide dual carriageways that have no crossroads or driveways and then set up speed traps and ignore all other moving violations? Surely, this is somewhat disproportionate overkill, or is this a case of financial considerations prevailing over equity and justice?

Prosecuting other moving offences is however apparently deemed unnecessary as speed is considered as the only offence worth enforcing. Why are other moving offences not perceived to be as significant to road safety as speeding? These pertinent questions require exhaustive answers, as general patrolling and observation are presently almost non-existent. The average motorist is being uncompromisingly punished and victimized, yet expensive luxury cars minus both number plates travelling at excessive speed are seldom taken to task. Where is the even handedness in this? Why is the aberrant and discourteous behaviour of the minibus taxi ignored to the detriment of its numerous passengers and other motorists right to the safe use of our roads?

A minibus taxi in an un-roadworthy condition, driven recklessly by an unlicensed driver, on smooth tyres and conveying far more than its legal capacity of passengers, is apparently too daunting a task to apprehend.

Three very important principals enshrined in our Constitution, as well as the judiciary, are relevant to this contentious issue. The presumption of innocence, the right to freedom, and the right to not be subjected to unfair judicial practice are entrenched in our constitution. These principles clash unashamedly with the current procedure of speed trapping by means of camera and then notifying the offender months later that he has been trapped at a given speed. Merely because the camera has recorded a given speed, does not mean that the suspect driver is automatically guilty. The accused has no adequate latitude to prepare a reasonable defence against the allegation of speeding, should he or she wish to do so.

Our courts and legal system have clearly set the principle that traffic enforcement should be exercised fairly and that austere methods only be used in exceptional or deserving circumstances as is entrenched in the Constitution. The concealment and camouflaging of the camera device and its operator is a similarly contentious issue. This seems to be the criterion to balance the books, with government collusion, at the expense of the already financially overburdened motorist. Surely camera traps should be visible and used moderately as a means to address the behaviour of the motorist in a more dignified and safety orientated manner.

The manner in which camera speed equipment is being used is in fact a total contradiction of the South African Constitution. Chapter 2 in the Bill of Rights, in section 33(1), and 35(3), and (5), entitles us to the judicial right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the offence for which we have been charged and not to be intimidated into paying a fine or become another victim of unsolicited bribery.

A fundamental tenet of jurisprudence is that the law and its enforcement must be fair and reasonable. When neither of these elements is present, a loss of public respect is a natural consequence. Worse still, a loss of respect in one area erodes the credibility of the justice system as a whole.