Speed Kills, don't drink and drive
The adverse findings of Judge Nathan Erasmus in the test case concerning the Dräger Alcotest 7110 MK 111 device may turn out to be the tipping point in the policy making endeavours of transport authorities in South Africa. The Dräger is not a reliable tool for the prosecution of drunken drivers. Minister of Transport S'bu Ndebele has indicated that a zero tolerance of alcohol policy is in the offing. Taken together with his recent utterances concerning the reduction of speed limits, it appears that a radical re-appraisal of the official approach to the high incidence of death on SA's roads is being formulated in order to reduce the toll of accidents, injuries and mortality due to road accidents.The slogans used by road safety campaigners are at last gaining traction in the corridors of power: "speed kills" and "if you drink don't drive" are both as accurate a summary of the major causes of death on the road as any complex scientific research project is likely to produce. The trend in SA in regard to tolerance of alcohol in the blood of those who drive the potentially lethal vehicles that are used on our roads in ever increasing numbers, has been toward ever lower percentages of alcohol. The decision to drop to zero tolerance is a logical extrapolation of the policy direction over a number of years and is to be welcomed by all who value their rights to life and dignity, to bodily integrity and freedom from violence as well as to an environment that is not harmful to health and well being.
All of these rights are guaranteed to all in the Bill of Rights and they are meant to be "respected, protected, promoted and fulfilled" by the State. The Minister is simply doing his constitutional duty by reducing the permissible amount of alcohol in the blood of a driver to zero. He ought to be applauded for doing so.
His ideas relating to the reduction of speed limits are somewhat more controversial. The rush of modern life seems to be infectious and arguments are raised about the efficiency of the economy being adversely affected by the introduction of lower speed limits. There are also specious arguments about speed not making any discernable difference. Try this experiment: roll two raw eggs towards each other slowly and watch them bounce apart gently and undamaged. Now speed up the rate at which the eggs are propelled toward each other. The higher their combined velocity at the point of impact the greater the damage, until at very rapid rates of movement instant scrambled eggs appear. The fact that this basic experiment is replicated daily in real life on the roads of SA using vehicles with "crumple zones" driven by drivers restrained by seat belts and protected by innumerable air-bags does not detract from the scientific fact that the harder impacts occur at higher speeds of approach and create greater damage.
The other oft overlooked aspect of driving these lethal weapons we call motor vehicles is that their drivers have limited reaction time within which to respond to emergency situations, such as a pedestrian on a highway or an over-taker approaching over a blind rise. Reaction times, measured in mere fractions of a second, can make the difference between a near miss and a fatal collision. They are slowed by consumption of alcohol. A fast moving vehicle is harder to stop and takes longer to swerve than a slow moving vehicle. Braking co-efficients, road surface type and weather conditions all play a role, but the truth is that even as expert a driver as Michael Schumaker, driving a Formula 1 vehicle, is not immune to the laws of physics which govern what occurs in situations in which decisive and quick action is required to avoid a collision.
It is accordingly good sense to reconsider the speed limits applicable on our roads. Since the dawn of the new SA we have been trying to build a humane and compassionate society. The rate of death and destruction, injury and mutilation on our roads does not neatly fit into an ethos of this kind. Respect for life and limb and steps to avoid the scourge of carnage on our roads are sorely needed. Speeding does not necessarily cause accidents, but it is often a contributory cause to unsafe conditions and it increases the chances of serious injury or a fatality if a collision does occur.
Recent experience in Australia indicates that the open roads are safer with a limit of 110 km/hr in place, while urban limits of 50 in general and 40 km/hr around schools, beaches and playgrounds are appropriate. Historical experience in SA itself, during the fuel crisis of the seventies, also teaches us that the accident and death rates on roads fell markedly when the lower speed limits were enforced in those days of oil scarcity.
Road traffic experts rely on the "Three Es" to ply their trade: education, enforcement and engineering. As far as education in SA is concerned, it is apparent that we have a long way to go to persuade our drivers that it is in their own self interest to drive soberly and slowly. Bad habits, testosterone and competitiveness combine to make our roads a place of rage and danger. The staggering of starting times, greater use of flexitime and even daylight saving could all be used to decongest rush hours and improve driving conditions and the circumstances of taxi operators. But the essential change of mindset that will see designated drivers in place on evenings out, or greater use of public transport, or "get home safe" hired drivers is still some way into the future for most road users.
The use of engineering as a means of promoting road safety in SA boils down to improving the condition of roads by the elimination of hazardous potholes and re-engineering of blind rises that do not have a double lane in both directions. The Public Works Department should engage on these as its contribution to greater road safety for all.
It is in the field of law enforcement that the greatest changes are needed. We have too few traffic law enforcement officials and far too few of them are visible at any given time. Enforcement of zero tolerance of alcohol and lower speed limits in an effective way can in fact pay for itself as the savings to the public purse occasioned by the reduction in the number of serious accidents will have a profound effect. More officials visibly on duty can more than pay their way and in so doing improve the quality of life of all who use the roads of SA.
There is only one constitutionally compliant and effective way to successfully prosecute drivers who use alcohol: their blood has to be tested swiftly for use in court as proof of intoxication. This does not mean that the Dräger has no role. It can be used as a screening device and those with low amounts of alcohol on their breath can be given the option of going for a blood test or of paying a stiff administrative fine. All seriously intoxicated drivers who are Dräger tested must be sent for blood testing and the means of obtaining blood test results rapidly must be put in place.
To this end the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa has challenged the Premier of the Western Cape to champion the creation of a private forensic laboratory which is equipped and able to deal with the needs of prosecution services aimed at the effective enforcement of the new traffic law dispensation that the Minister of Transport has in mind. State forensic laboratories are in disarray and their personnel are on strike. Privatization, of blood testing and other toxicology work, seems to be the only viable solution at this stage. The ultimate goal of safer roads in SA may require more "out of the box" thinking.
Paul Hoffman SC
30th September, 2011
