Local newsNews

Justice Project SA: SA needs a national policy to govern roads

JOBURG - Justice Project SA has called on the department of transport to reel in provincial governance and implement a national policy to control the country’s roads.

South Africa desperately needed a national policy with legislated penalties and interventions to effectively tackle the problems on the country’s roads and reduce road carnage, Justice Project SA said.

It expressed concern about the lack of consistency in road traffic enforcement and road safety policies across the country.

This comes after two transport MECs had called for vastly different actions against road offenders in their respective provinces.

According to reports, KwaZulu-Natal transport MEC, Willies Mchunu said he was engaging with transport minister, Dipuo Peters to criminalise traffic offences and send offenders to prison.

Meanwhile, Western Cape transport MEC, Donald Grant had announced that traffic fines in that province would be tripled with effect from 1 August 2014.

“Inconsistencies in traffic law enforcement, the penalties associated therewith and the various provincial and local policies that exist to preside over a national problem are most certainly contributing to the carnage on our roads – as opposed to combating it,” Justice Project SA said in a statement.

However, South Africa did have a national law, which sought to address the problems on the country’s roads.

South Africa enacted the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (Aarto) Act in 1998 which implements a points-demerit system on traffic offenders.

However, according to Justice Project SA, the law had to date only been implemented in the Joburg and Tshwane metropolitan police departments.

“This year, the Aarto Act will be 16 years old and it is still no closer to being rectified and rolled out nationally.”

Justice Project SA stated that despite poor drafting and improper implementation of Aarto, the act was capable of providing South African road management with structure and interventions it required.

It argued that implementing different policies and penalties in different provinces confused people and was unconstitutional.

Related Articles

Back to top button