The editorial last Saturday focused on the issue of road safety and concluded that "As a free human activity, driving is subject to ethical or moral laws derived from the very nature of man in relation to himself and to others, considered both individually and socially. These rules hold for everyone related to the road, whether they are drivers, workers in road safety, builders or caretakers of roads and vehicles or pedestrians. What is required is elementary prudence, respect for others and solidarity because road traffic can cause irreparable damage to persons and property".
While highlighting the need for continued and better education, the editorial pointed out, fairly, that the authorities in our country are not doing their job efficiently. To this I add that in many instances what seems to be the prime motive behind the introduction of certain legislation impacting on our driving appears to be that of added income. This applies at both local and national level. The introduction of speed cameras and reduction of speed levels in many areas around our island have not really served any purpose other than to increase income from fines. Statistics quoted in the said editorial have made this amply clear.
By increasing fines the wrong message is being transmitted. It is wise to bear in mind that some road tragedies are not caused so much by speed but by recklessness. The law courts have constantly followed a simple path here: each driver is responsible for his own actions. Each driver must stick to the rules of the road.
One of the primary responsibilities of all drivers is that of keeping a "proper look out" of all that is occurring around him. This indicates a proper lookout not only of what is ahead but also of all that is around the vehicle he is driving, including what is behind him.
In the decision given by the court of Criminal Appeal The police vs Roderick Debattista, (May 26, 2004) the court noted that it was the driver's duty "to see what is in plain view" (Criminal Appeal: The police vs Joseph Vella [August 10, 1963]) and that those who failed to notice what should have reasonably been seen meant they were not keeping a proper lookout (Criminal Appeal: The police vs J. M. Laferla [June 17, 1961]).
Reference was also made to Newhaus N.D. vs Bastion Insurance Co. Ltd (1968) where the English courts retained that: "Keeping a proper lookout means more than looking straight ahead. It includes awareness of what is happening in one's immediate vicinity. A motorist should have a view of the whole road from side to side and, in the case of a road passing through a built up area, of the pavements on the side of the road as well".
The above judgment, and many others of the same ilk, point essentially to the driver as being the fulcrum around which traffic is to be regulated. The role of the authorities is to ensure that the state of the roads and the road traffic systems do not in any manner cause a situation of frustration in the driver. Of course, this does not mean that traffic fines ought not to exist. In many instances it is the fine that brings us to our senses but, at least in my experience, it is normally the genuine driver who gets fined. Those drivers who couldn't care less get fined, do not pay the fine and carry on driving regardless! Statistics released in the UK have shown that the implementation of speed cameras has not helped in reducing accidents while proper education campaigns have.
The editorial of The Times effectively opines that it is high time we get our act together and with this we cannot but all concur. The point is how do we get our act together. We get our act together not with Johnny-come-lately solutions but with a tried and trusted approach. In this regard we are lucky in that other countries have already gone through the traumas and have tried and tested solutions. We can learn from other countries' mistakes.
Driving is a necessity for most of us. Making it too tedious or difficult to just get to work does nothing but increase frustration and this can only lead to more accidents. Making driving simpler is the solution. It is ludicrous to expect drivers to be more attentive to the sign-posts indicating speed limits and speed cameras than to what is on the road. Passing furtive legislation changing speed limits in certain roads is not the solution.