GRASKOP – ‘n Abnormale vragmotor het Woensdag vir ‘n relletjie op Twitter gesorg, nadat Ernst Roets foto’s geplaas het van die trok wat na bewering amper ‘n ongeluk veroorsaak het.
Roets is die adjunk-uitvoerende hoof van AfriForum. @ErnstRoets het nagenoeg 46 400 volgelinge op die sosiale media-platform. Hy het Woensdag oor die voorval ge-Tweet.
“Ek en my gesin was vandag amper in ‘n ongeluk op die bergpas tussen Pilgrim’s Rest en Graskop toe hierdie meneer skielik van voor af kom en oor albei bane ry. Ek het net-net betyds remme aangeslaan. Die foto’s is geneem nadat hy reeds ‘n ent uit die pad gery het.
“Ek het die drywer gekonfronteer. Ek het vir hom gesê my vrou is swanger en ek het klein kinders in die kar. Hy het geantwoord dis my probleem en die pad behoort nie aan my nie.”
SIEN OOK: Don’t act like you’re in the dark about LEDs
Die trok is duidelik as ‘n Van Wettens Breakdowns-trok gemerk.
By navraag is Laevelder na Nadja Cilliers verwys. Sy het gesê dat Van Wettens nie op hierdie stadium op die voorval kommentaar gaan lewer nie.
Wat sê die wet?
Corrie Stapelberg, forensiese ongeluksondersoeker, verduidelik dat alles afhang van die voorwaardes wat gestipuleer is op die permit wat deur die Departement van Vervoer vir die vragmotor uitgereik is.
“Die permit word uitgereik ten opsigte van die voertuig se abnormaliteit: of dit te lank of te breed of te swaar is. Die permit bepaal ook of begeleidingsvoertuie nodig is, of nie,” verduidelik hy.
“Permitte kan per rit uitgereik word, of vir ‘n bepaalde tydperk geldig wees, afhangende van die tipe werk wat die vragmotors verrig.” Sodra ‘n abnormale vragmotor oor verskeie provinsies moet ry, moet daar ‘n permit in elke provinsie bekom word.
LEES OOK: Annatjie Myburgh accused guilty of murder
In a statement released on behalf of Van Wettens on July 5, Seymore Du Toit & Basson attorneys said the incident was one of road rage*
“Our client’s truck tractor, pulling a three-axle lowbed trailer, with registration number 040 VWL MP was travelling on a public road near Pilgrim’s Rest on July 3, carrying no load. This vehicle is licensed to carry abnormal loads and even when it is empty (i.e. carrying no load) the vehicle in itself is of abnormal size. The vehicle is properly fitted with the appropriate legally required signage, both front and rear, indicating its abnormal size.
“The length and width of this unit is abnormal and will result in what is known as ‘run-in’ on the rear wheels of the trailer. That is why our client’s driver was driving very slowly and having to negotiate with the truck-tractor left wheel off the left hand side of the road, while the trailer right wheels were over the centre line of the road.
“The road itself, although very narrow and winding, does not have a legal limit on the size of vehicle permitted to be driven thereon. Our client had to collect a load in Pilgrim’s Rest and there is no other route available.
“Our client’s aforementioned vehicle was driven by Moses Malope, a 60-year-old properly qualified employee with more than 26 years of experience in driving heavy duty breakdown and recovery vehicles. The said driver was accompanied by his assistant, Gospel Sibanda, who has been in the employ of our client for a period of more than a year.
“Our client’s vehicle was travelling at a significantly low speed of approximately 15 to 20 km/h. This speed was necessitated by the size and length of the vehicle and the meandering nature of the Pilgrim’s Rest Road, which is very narrow with only one lane in each direction, partially overgrown with grass and other shrubs in various places on both sides of the road.
“At a point in the road where it makes a sharp curve, our client’s driver noticed a vehicle approaching it from the front, which vehicle was driving at an excessive speed considering the circumstances of the narrow and meandering road.
“When the excessively speeding vehicle, driven by Ernst Roets, approached our client’s vehicle, Roets applied his brakes dramatically, as a result of the speed at which he was travelling, in order to avoid a collision with our client’s truck.
“After Roets brought his vehicle to a stop, he reversed in order to position his vehicle immediately adjacent to the driver’s side of our client’s truck. Roets then launched an aggressive verbal attack at our client’s driver, using foul language and making several unfounded threats and demands.
“Our client’s driver, being an experienced and trusted employee with a particularly placid demeanour, calmly attempted to reason with Roets.
Our client’s driver stated the following to Roets: ‘This is our road, this is your road. We all use this road. Where do you want me to drive?’
“Roets responded, quite rudely that he does not know where our client’s driver is supposed to drive.
“Thereafter, in a continued tirade and acting aggressively, Mrs Roets exited their vehicle and started taking photographs of our client’s truck. Our client’s driver calmly confirmed that Mrs Roets may take all the pictures that she wishes.
“From the pictures published on social media by Roets, it is clear that our client’s truck in fact drove as far as practically possible on the left side of the road, to the point that our client’s left front wheel was in the grass on the left side of the tarred road.
“Our client’s driver was therefore already driving very slowly and it was not possible for our client’s driver to keep any further left, because his left wheel was already off the road in the grass, in an attempt to make as much space as possible for oncoming traffic to pass.
“Our client’s driver and his assistant were both interviewed separately and vigorously by our client, after the incident. Both employees corroborated this version of the facts.
“Our client’s driver and his assistant furthermore confirmed that various other vehicles travelling in the same direction as Roets, passed our client’s truck (from the front) and all such other vehicles drove at a sufficiently reduced speed in order to safely pass our client’s truck.
“All such other vehicles safely made their way past our client’s truck, notwithstanding the fact that the road is particularly narrow and winding.
“It is regrettable that an individual of Roets’ public stature has elected to launch this unwarranted verbal attack, which can only be described as road rage.
“It appears that Roets was endangering his own life, the life of his pregnant wife (by his own admission) and the lives of his children in his vehicle, by driving at an excessive speed in the prevailing circumstances.
“To make it worse, Roets then appear to have stopped his vehicle in the middle of the road to execute his verbal tirade against our client’s driver and to take pictures, which he evidently later posted in social media.
“Our client will not become embroiled in a social media mudslinging match with Roets: suffice to record that we reserve all our client’s rights in respect the defamatory and false statements that Roets has elected to publish.
“Interestingly, Roets elected not to afford our client any reasonable opportunity to explain the situation, prior to his social media publications. Given his position as a senior official at AfriForum, it is fair to state that we expected better behaviour on his part.”
Roets denies this
Roets replied to Van Wettens’ statement by pointing out that it was a letter of attorney in the form of a media statement containing certain allegations. He indicated that he would obtain legal advice before responding. Meanwhile, he offered the opinion that their response contained errors of fact and questioned their reasoning. Lowvelder will publish his full response once it is made available.
*This article has been updated since its online publication on July 5, to include the explanation from Van Wettens as requested by the newspaper last week and again on July 13, to include the response by Roets.
