Chris Barron

Why are you so opposed to speed trapping? Because speed trapping doesn’t equate to speed enforcement. It’s not a deterrent? No. And I’ve got all the statistical information to back my claims up. Surely anything that might encourage people to obey the speed limit must be good? How do you encourage people to obey the speed limit when 14% of people pay traffic fines? It’s no deterrent because they [the local authorities] concentrate on volume. Speed enforcement is where you stop the person, so you halt the crime which you allege is happening. This happens in less than 1% of instances. How does it add to the deterrent value if people are stopped? Firstly, you’re not posting traffic fines into the ether in the hope that someone does something about it. Secondly, you get an opportunity to check the vehicle and the driver for fitness. If drivers are being stopped on busy multilane highways, isn’t that pretty hazardous for all concerned? Certainly not, if it is done properly. You don’t stop them in the middle of the road, you stop them at the side of the road. And this can be done without interrupting the traffic flow? Experience in the US, UK and Australia has shown that. And, in fact, it creates an even bigger deterrent effect because people see blue flashing lights, a vehicle pulled over, and they say: “Oops, I better behave myself.” Cameras have no deterrent effect whatsoever. They’re there to make money. But you see people slowing down if signs warn them of cameras? It’s no longer a requirement to display signs saying cameras because, of course, the focus is on road safety not on making money. So they’ve taken that requirement out so that you don’t know there is speed enforcement by hidden cameras and cops hiding in the bushes. Yes, I’m being very sarcastic. Did the signs add to the deterrent value? Some people took notice of them. Some people don’t take notice of any road traffic signs. I want to put you in the picture here. I am not prospeeding. I am very anti-speeding. But the fact is: the way we are doing speed prosecution in South Africa is not effective because it focuses on revenue generation. Municipalities do need revenue. Surely speedsters are fair game? So encouraging people to break the law is a bona fide way of generating revenue? By seeming to side with speedsters and making speed cops out to be the bad guys, aren’t you encouraging this? No, speed cops are the bad guys, we’re not making them out to be the bad guys. When they get involved in visible policing they’re demanding bribes. When they’re hiding in bushes . . . it’s not the speed cops so much who are the bad guys. No speed enforcement by camera takes place unless there is a private company behind it. This is a multibillion-rand industry. Aren’t you exacerbating the problem by encouraging those who break the speed limit to think of themselves as innocent, put-upon victims? You want to talk about innocent, put-upon victims? I have a professor of law who found out he had been exceeding the speed limit after he had incurred 180 speeding fines. Had he been stopped the first time, do you think he would have turned around and said “Ooh, the speed cops are the bad guys, JPSA says the speed cops are the bad guys, I’m the victim here”? That’s a pathetic argument, it really is. The fact that we actively encourage visible and effective road traffic policing, and discourage making money out of speeding fines, is something that the municipalities need to look at. Should speed trapping be abolished, then? No. Camera speed trapping should be abolished. What we want to see is enforcement, not entrapment, which is supposed to be illegal in this country. Firstly, enforce moving violations. When a person is found to be exceeding the speed limit on a freeway or road outside an urban area by more than 40km/h, that person must be pulled over, arrested, fingerprints taken, apply for bail, appear in court. If found guilty, they get a criminal record and their driving licence must be suspended for a minimum of six months. Why is this not enforced by law? Because local authorities are making useful money out of the current system? That’s one reason, and central government is terrified to upset local and provincial government. The other reason is that they’re talking about rolling out the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act nationally, which means that they will get a share of the loot. So why encourage proper traffic law enforcement when you can make so much money out of entrapment? So the situation is likely to get worse? That it is. Albeit they’re talking about a point demerit system, but when last did you see a camera ask to see a person’s driving licence?