Motorists not fine with entrapment
Dennis Jackson
2009-05-11
The AARTO point demerit system, correctly put into practice, would definitely be a positive step towards achieving road safety. But the decay initiates in the indiscriminate and incompetent manner in which JMPD is currently implementing speed trapping to the exclusion of most other moving offences.
Many would agree it’s a distressing reality that in any rational democracy, our present JMPD traffic and police force would be unceremoniously dismissed for dereliction of duty. For reasons which escape the rational mind, it’s incompetent, corrupt and supremely arrogant. The downright indifference of the JMPD, especially at roadblocks, is contemptible. Respect for the JMPD has been seriously eroded over past years due to many undermining factors. The ambiguous uncertainty of public servants charged with fraud, corruption and drunk driving and then acquitted, despite a significant difference of opinion, is too intricate to discuss here.
I do not for one moment condone excessive speed. The brainless Formula-One wannabe driving a vehicle at 200km/h plus, must be made to atone for his sins. But the hapless motorist, who inadvertently strays over the limit by a small margin, hardly deserves such stern punishment as is presently meted out. We all inadvertently creep over the speed limit at times. Nevertheless we object to being subjected to this draconian method of punishment for a small misdemeanour. Equally we object to being fleeced by intensive and repetitive speed trapping, while significantly worse and perilous offences are committed with impunity on our roads.
The fact that JMPD officers spend their working hours hiding behind bushes manning speed-trapping equipment instead of being out on visible patrol and general traffic enforcement duties, indicates more concern with trapping South African motorists (and all the subsequent revenue derived from this entrapment), than ensuring a safer driving environment on our roads. Why are so many officers utilised to perform speed trapping, yet an insurance company must provide point duty at out of order robots? Where then are JMPD’s priorities? –
Quite clearly not in road safety, but in supporting a mendacious method of revenue collection! We saw on Carte Blanche that traps are not operated according to the TCSP (Technical Committee for Standards and Procedures) guidelines. Procedures are infrequently adhered to. Many speed traps are operated at locations that are not sanctioned by the National Prosecuting Authority. Photographs of “speeding motorists” are manipulated or duplicated. The concealment of these traps is tantamount to entrapment. Uncertainty inevitably arises when one observes the manner in which a notification is sent in the post.
Without an exact speed or time and, on occasion, not even the location where you were trapped. The system is designed to frustrate you into just paying. It even borders on a commercial enterprise by offering you a 50% discount to entice you to pay up. A very pertinent question also arises. It defies logic that our traffic law enforcement can be commercially driven by camera and photo processing companies, garnering an enormous profit out of speed trapping. Indisputable evidence exists that an inordinate amount of money is being derived from this and fraudulent activities are taking place as a consequence.
The SITE Institute has examples of potential malpractice where a motorist receives five fines in the post, all for 71kph and all five of them at the same location on various days but all with the identical photograph. Does this not elicit scepticism? We are unfortunately on a ruinous downward path in which Metro and the AARTO system are utterly violating the constitutional rights of the motorist. Instead of bringing an improvement to the current system of traffic law enforcement, the abuse of this traffic enforcement policy now places us in an indefensible position without any moral influence being applied.
AARTO imparts no latitude to the alleged “speed infringer”.
Defending oneself against this incongruity is a bureaucratic nightmare that involves considerable expense and time to defend a possibly erroneous R100 fine. One is literally forced to succumb, admit guilt and pay to prevent further expense. Do we not have the right to an equitable adjudication process, by which we can be present to exercise our human right to fairness and equality before the law, prior to the necessity of a court appearance? We are all equal before the law and entitled to equal protection against a corrupt entity. Anyone charged with an offence, be it civil or criminal, has the right to be permitted to assert their constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by an impartial tribunal.
Despite difficulties in comparison it seems clear that the government, with its broad and busy mandate, has been unable or unwilling to root out corruption and improve traffic enforcement to achieve a balanced, fair and just process. The motorist needs to speak out fervently against this inequitable, mendacious and underhanded excuse for road safety.
Dennis Jackson is an ex Chief Provincial Traffic Inspector. He is Executive President of the S.I.T.E. Institute (The South African Institute for the Scrutiny of Inequitable Traffic Enforcement). Readers can purchase the CD manual on speeding fines by e-mailing via-con@telkomsa.net or phone 083-497-6770.
