Don't wait till all is well to increase traffic fines

Lucien Jones, Guest Columnist

This country has a problem. A major problem - too many crashes on our roads, resulting in far too many people dying, as a result of road traffic injuries (RTI).

So far this year, as of June 9, 147 persons have died - 16 more than last year this time, and a staggering 30 more than our 'banner' year 2012, when, for the first time, the National Road Safety Council (NRSC) achieved its target of 'below 300'.

A third of those who die every year are pedestrians. Two thirds of the fatalities fall within the category of 'vulnerable road users'; pedal cyclists, motor cyclists and pedestrians.

Worldwide, approximately 90 per cent of those who perish each year are from poor underdeveloped countries like Jamaica. Further, in at least one age cohort, RTIs are the leading cause of death, ahead of HIV/AIDS. The clear message: people who use our roads are in desperate need of help lest they perish. The more crashes we have on our roads is the more we lose our loved ones, causing unbearable grief and pain for families, placing tremendous burden on the health-care system, triggering huge payouts by the insurance sector and seriously affecting our development as a nation.

Clearly, we cannot continue to allow this kind of carnage on our roads. It could have been worse, far worse. Thank God that one man, the late Professor Sir John Golding, a world-renowned orthopaedic surgeon, had a vision, energy and passion to start a movement to reduce the number of persons dying on our roads. Those of us who have come after, have stood on his broad shoulders and continue to pursue the dream.

So, rather than talk about reducing the level of fatalities from more than 400, which was the situation in 1993 when the NRSC was created as an Act of Parliament, piloted by former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson, we are now lamenting the possibility of returning to more than 300.

This is the context in which the NRSC joins in the important debate about the proposed increased fines, which will attend the passage of the new Road Traffic Act (RTA) recently tabled in Parliament. In that respect, the call by The Gleaner, June 7, to "unmask traffic corruption" is a welcome one.

We hasten to add, that is only one of many challenges this country faces in its efforts to push the fatality rate down further than we have achieved. So we are not only in agreement with the need to fight corruption in the two key agencies identified - the Island Traffic Authority and police Traffic Division - but have been actively pushing successive governments to deal with the matter.

DEALING WITH CORRUPTION

In fact, in 2006 we co-authored a study with PAHO, which revealed that of the sample of male drivers interviewed, 12 per cent obtained their licence fraudulently, and 77 per cent were involved in fatal crashes. That's the reason why, whenever we meet with the prime minister, who chairs NRSC, together with ministers whose portfolio responsibilities impact on road safety, along with their administrative and technical team, the issue of the reorganisation of ITA is constantly on the agenda for discussion, always in pursuit of greater efficiency and to deal with corruption.

To be fair, progress has been made on that front. The same level of urgency has attended our efforts to reduce corruption in the Traffic Department of the Jamaica Constabulary Force. Whenever we have had meetings with commissioners of police over the years, this matter has been high on our agenda. So, although ultimately the problem of dealing with corruption, in both ITA and police Traffic Department, resides with the political directorate, we have not resiled from confronting these issues. What we don't wish to happen is a postponement of the enactment of this well-needed and long-overdue, piece of legislation, until all is quiet on the proverbial 'western front'.

In this context, also, NRSC plans to heighten its call for the use of electronic surveillance as a tool to counter corruption, as it reduces the human element, particularly with regard to the issuing of traffic tickets, at the same time providing us with a more efficient means of catching those who run red lights and exceed speed limits.

The other matter which has provoked quite a bit of public comment is the significant increase in fines.

Ultimately, that is a matter for Parliament to rule on, not NRSC. However, we were part of the process which recommended the level of increases, so we do not intend to 'wash our hands' on the issue like Pontius Pilate did. The problem here is one of balance. On one hand, people are dying, so a significant deterrent, acting in tandem with other measures, is needed. On the other hand, those who will be caught, if they mistakenly, or carelessly, break the law, are faced with fines that some may be hard pressed to pay. We could argue, quite justifiably, as Alan Magnus on Morning Radio observed this week, that, " this is not a tax that you have to pay." Therefore, the key message here is, do not break the law when you drive on the roads, otherwise you will pay dearly out of your pockets.

The matter is more grave, as breaking the law could ultimately make you end up paying even more dearly - with your life. So where do you strike the balance?

I believe the collective wisdom of Parliament will rise to the occasion and adjudicate in the best interest of those who use our roads, as we do not intend to return to the bad old days when more than 400 persons, with heartbreaking regularity, died on our roads each year.

Dr Lucien W. Jones is vice-chairman of the National Road Safety Council.