I joined Arrive Alive because I thought that, as motorists, we all needed to be concerned about road accidents and act upon what it would take to reduce the carnage on the nation’s roads. I always felt that anything higher than 80 kph could be dangerous. Therefore I was very glad when the police finally brought the radar gun into effect.
However, recent activities of the Police have indicated, in my view, that they are now being ridiculous in the recent charging of a motorist for driving five kilometres above the speed limit, a charge which carries a fine of $1,000.
The public would also have noticed that these fines were introduced as the major deterring factor to traffic breaches, when the lawmakers realised that the police appeared to have very little intention of doing any major speed prosecutions under the old penalty system.
While an increase in the penalties was probably justified, I hold to the view that too many of the traffic penalties are now fines in excess of what is reasonable for the traffic breach in the circumstances. (Alcohol related offences the exception)
Who was consulted when these fines were being placed in the law books, I do not know. It cannot at all, be reasonable for a motorist to be charged $1,000 for five kilometres above the limit when all of us who drive are aware that it is quite and easily possible that while driving, trying to hold at 80 kph, the car can easily move to 85 unintentionally.
Speedometers themselves may have small discrepancies from a true and accurate state, which could have a driver thinking that he is maintaining the speed limit. So here’s a question: What is the margin of error for speedometers? What is the margin of error for Lidar speed guns? Could there not be a situation where both errors come together to indicate to the police that a motorist is exceeding the limit by five kph, when in fact his speedometer reads 50 kph? I only ask the question.
However, it is a lot less acceptable to expect anyone to believe that a vehicle can “creep up” to 120 kmph without the driver’s knowledge. Such excess in speed is generally always intentional, dangerous, and will therefore always warrant police intervention.
But does the penalty really fit the crime?
Considering penalties in the first place, I would ask why is the fine for a possibly-accidental 85 kpm transgression the same as that for 120+ kpm? Why could the lawmakers not have implemented a fine that is in accordance with the number of miles in excess of the limit? Did they not consider this? Did they not think that this would be more acceptable in terms of penalties?
A fine of $20 to $30 for each kilometre in excess of the limit, in my view, could be a more equitable and reasonable all-round penalty, and the penalty should fit the crime. That is not the case here.
I used to wonder why people said, The Law is an Ass, but now I know why. (You may wish to Google Speeding Fines for Pennsylvania to see how the penalties are calculated.) I can only assume at this point, that, after the hue and cry on this matter, lawmakers will see the unfairness of this recent charge. This is just too ridiculous.
If in fact, as the Works Minister has indicated, there could be a possible increase in the speed limit to 120 kph, is there going to be a technical study as to what lane widths will be required to accommodate such increase in speed limits. I am pretty sure we do not now have the required lane widths in significant areas of the highway.
What lane-width standards are now being used, I do not know. At the moment, however, it certainly does not appear that our highway lanes are to the US standard of 12 feet wide which facilitates a maximum speed of 55 mph to 70 mph in various parts of the USA. Why would our drivers want an increase to 120 kph as suggested by many, without serious thought as to whether our lane and shoulder widths are adequate for such speeds? Would it not be disastrous for such increase in speed to be implemented under present lane conditions? If our road traffic engineers know what they are doing, they will also know that to increase the limit is not just a matter of law.
Have the 120 kph speed lobbyists thought of how uncomfortable it could be on the Beetham Highway or similar area with a cement truck on your right and an National Petroleum long vehicle on your left, the three of you doing 120 kph. God forbid.
Think about it. At present, if you are lucky and each vehicle stays accurately in its lane at all times, (hardly likely) you will probably have some four feet or less between vehicles. The difference will be that chances of errors and disaster would now have exponentially increased.
George Livingstone
Trincity
May God protect the 120 kph lobbyists.