Cedric Stephens | Regaining trust in the new road traffic law

The Road Traffic Act of 2018 and the accompanying regulations appear to be at the top of the national agenda.

This assumes, of course, that newspaper articles and conversations on social media are representative of the discussions taking place in the public space. More succinctly, these topics are trending.

I have been following the movement of the new law since it was first presented as a bill in parliament and as it passed through the legislative process.

Former Attorney General Marlene Malahoo Forte summarised the four-stage process in a February 28, 2021, Sunday Gleaner this way: Step 1: Preparation and circulation of the bill (A bill is a proposal for a new law, or a proposal to change an existing law that is presented for debate before Parliament); Step 2: Approval of the bill by the Legislation Committee; Step 3: Approval of the bill by Cabinet; Step 4: Introduction of the bill in Parliament. After the bill is debated and approved in the House of Representatives it is then passed to the Senate where it is also debated. The Senate can also make changes and if this happens, the bill is then sent back to the House for approval. After the House approves the changes, the law is then sent to the governor general for his signature. It becomes law after it is published in the Jamaica Gazette.

More than six years have elapsed between the time when the decision was taken to replace the 1938 Road Traffic Act and when the 2018 Act came into effect on February 1, 2023. The changes in the law governing how motorists should behave on public roadways did not come as Nicodemus came to Jesus at night as some of the more vocal critics now appear to be suggesting.

On the other hand, lawmakers did a poor job in preparing the way – to use another biblical allusion – for the replacement of the 80-year law. They focused only on enforcement strategies, including ways to improve the issuing of traffic tickets and the system of imposing demerits for repeat offenders.

Counting the cost

Gleaner columnist Dr Lascelve Graham in his article last Thursday, ‘Crisis! Leadership Needed’, argued that Jamaica is experiencing a crisis of leadership.

“Our problems in crime and violence, crudity and indiscipline, education, and socialisation are the logical consequences of poor, weak leadership at the political and other levels. Our leaders lack the courage and revolutionary mindset necessary to undertake the fundamental changes required to forgo or minimise the above … the root of the problem, goes all the way back to the slavery/plantation society from which we originate, with its inequities, harshness, lack of opportunities for the majority of the society and other social ills. The problems cannot be fixed by maintaining the status quo. It cannot be business as usual. The boat must be rocked, and that is a very difficult thing to do indeed, since it means, among other things, upsetting friends, resisting peer pressure, swimming upstream, and going against the tide of vested interests,” he wrote.

The silence of the leadership of the island’s insurance industry – life and health and motor – in the public conversations about the implementation of new strategies by the Ministry of National Security to reduce indiscipline on the island’s road network is puzzling. The direct and indirect social and economic cost of motor vehicle accidents to the industry and the economy amount to billions of dollar annually. The Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica signed a memorandum of understanding with the ministry in 2020 and formed a committee “to effectively manage road-safety compliance”.

Life, health, and motor insurance companies cannot say that they were unaware that the old law was being replaced. They were, according to my information, involved in the process. Even if the industry was bypassed, there were strong indicators that change was imminent.

Change indicators

These trends include the following:

• Motor vehicle accidents have become a growing public-health problem in Jamaica. The frequency of crashes has continued to increase over the years;

• The new act is a major revamp of a statute, which was originally enacted in 1938. It will bring about, among other things, changes to how traffic is managed, new drivers will be licensed, drivers are required to behave and introduce a new regime of fines for persons who break the law;

• The road network has undergone many changes, especially with the commissioning of new, east-west, and north-south high-speed toll highways. These infrastructural changes are continuing;

• The use of cell phones while driving is now part of normal driving behaviour;

• Customer-facing claims staff in insurance companies are ignorant of the Road Traffic Act.

• The use of cell phones while driving increases the risk of crashes by the same order of magnitude as driving under the influence of alcohol.

• With the liberalisation of laws relating to the use of ganja, even more persons are now likely to drive under the influence of herbs and alcohol and use cell phones. A recent survey found that persons in these groups self-reported a higher number of crashes than non-users;

• The penetration rate for cell-phone use in Jamaica is over 90 per cent;

• The Jamaican Road Users’ Guide and The Jamaican Driver’s Guide, local how-to-drive safely references, were last reprinted in 2000 and 2011, respectively; and

• Insurance companies continue to pay billions of dollars to settle claims.

Changing societal behaviour is hard. It is also a long-term task. Lee Kuan Yew, writing in Chapter 13 of his book, From Third World to First The Singapore Story: 1965-2000, said: “I had introduced anti-spitting campaigns in the 1960s. But even in the ‘80s some taxi drivers would spit out of their car windows and some people were still spitting in markets and food centres. We persisted and disseminated the message through schools and the media that spitting spread diseases such as tuberculosis. Now people seldom see spitting in public … .”

In 2012, Harvard University professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter wrote an essay titled ‘Ten Reasons Why People Resist Change’. Among the things she said was: “The best thing leaders can do when the changes they seek pose a significant threat is to be honest, transparent, fast, and fair. Although leaders can’t always make people feel comfortable with change, they can minimize discomfort. Diagnosing the sources of resistance is the first step toward good solutions. And feedback from resistors can even be helpful in improving the process of gaining acceptance for change.”

Political and other leaders, in my judgement, still have an opportunity to do things to gain the trust of society and get members of the public to buy in to the new Road Traffic Act despite what one member of parliament called its ‘messy implementation.’

Cedric E. Stephens provides independent information and advice about the management of risks and insurance. For free information or counsel, write to: aegis@flowja.com or business@gleanerjm.com