National Road Traffic Amendment Bill: public hearings day 4

Meeting report

Meeting report

The Chairperson accepted apologies from the Deputy Minister of Transport, Ms N Nolutshungu (EFF) and Mr B Yabo (ANC). He invited Mr Howard Dembovsky, Chairperson: Justice Project of South Africa (JPSA), to make the first submission.

Submission by JPSA

Mr Dembovsky said that JPSA opposed changes to section 75 of the National Road Traffic Act that would remove the requirement for the Minister of Transport to consult with the shareholders committee before making regulations. This Committee included MECs for transport as well as representatives from the South African Local Government Association (SALGA). Removing them from the process of making regulations would create conditions for abuse and autocracy by the Minister.

He suggested that the regulation of driving schools was premature, as reckless driving was the main cause of crashes. Learner drivers should be required to undergo formal training before being allowed onto the roads, the K53 testing system should be modernised, and the requirements for a professional driving permit (PrDP) should be tightened.

JPSA opposed reducing the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit to zero percent. The bulk of alcohol-related road deaths involved drivers who were several times over the current BAC limit of 0.05 percent, so it was not clear what the rationale for the proposal was. Moreover, a 0.05 percent limit was in line with other countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). He was concerned about the low conviction rate of people arrested for drunk driving but was encouraged by the results of South African Breweries’ Alcohol Evidence Centre (AEC) pilot in Pietermaritzburg. Better enforcement of existing laws and stigmatisation of drunk driving would be far more effective than lowering the BAC limit to zero percent, which would lead to an increase in corruption. Mandatory testing of drivers involved in crashes and more severe sentencing would also improve the situation. Social interventions were needed, alongside a rehabilitative approach to first-time offenders, incorporating community service among the victims of alcohol-related road crashes.

Discussion

Mr L McDonald (ANC) asked if JPSA knew of any statistics on arrests and convictions for driving under the influence of narcotics. How was this tested? He appreciated the affirmation of the problems caused by intoxicated pedestrians, and noted that legislation prohibiting the serving of alcohol to intoxicated customers was extremely effective in the USA and certain European countries.

Mr Dembovsky replied that roadside narcotics testing was done in the USA, UK and Australia, but not in South Africa, and it was expensive. He noted that legislating the serving of alcohol to intoxicated customers fell outside the purview of the Department of Transport. Other departments would need to be involved and a sense of urgency would need to be adopted.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) asked whether the current structure of the Shareholders Committee was adequate. Could it or should it be changed and if so, how? Should driving schools not be regulated at all?

Mr Dembovsky replied that the Shareholders Committee was not optimal. Although provinces were well represented by MECs, the representation of local authorities by SALGA did not have the desired effect. Video conferencing might be part of the solution.

Mr M Chabangu (EFF) enquired about the possibility of following the example of Malaysia and Singapore, where driver’s licence applicants had to pass a government test which could result in the licence being refused if a person was found to have a history of behavioural problems, and the penalty for drunk driving was permanent revocation of a person’s licence.

Mr Dembovsky replied that South Africa was not yet at a stage at which it could implement measures like those in Malaysia and Singapore. 

Mr K Sithole (IFP) asked if JPSA had any suggestions for strengthening the Bill to combat corruption. It was a cancer that was killing the country.

Mr Dembovsky agreed that corruption was a societal cancer. He suggested that lifestyle audits, automated systems and punishing the people who paid bribes as well as those who accepted them might have a positive effect.

Submission by the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference (SACBC) 

Adv Mike Pothier, Parliamentary Liaison Officer, SACBC, said that the SACBC was in support of the Bill in general and Clauses 4 and 6, which addressed conflicts of interest among driving instructors, in particular.

The problem of alcohol-related road deaths needed to be addressed because of the sanctity of life. For this reason too, a serious solution going beyond mere window dressing was called for, and the SACBC did not think that a zero percent BAC limit would address the problem. Several countries had reduced alcohol-related road deaths without reducing the BAC limit to zero percent, and no evidence had been provided that the existing limit of 0.05 percent was too high. The proposal to reduce it to zero was therefore arbitrary. It would disproportionately affect the poor, who could not necessarily afford alternatives to private cars such as taxi cabs and ride-sharing services. It would criminalise people for using medicines containing small amounts of alcohol, and curtail their religious freedom. The change from a BAC limit of 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent in 1996 had not reduced alcohol-related road deaths because the law was not enforced. South Africans did not fear being stopped at a roadblock. Alongside enforcement, the most important intervention was education. This was the hard work that needed to be done. Changing the BAC limit to zero percent was no more than tinkering.

Discussion

Mr T Mabhena (DA) agreed that changing the BAC limit to zero percent was a public relations exercise. He agreed on the need for better enforcement of existing laws. He half-seriously suggested that the committee should consider hearing from the Gabola Church, whose members became intoxicated as part of their religious practice.

Mr P Mey (FF+) said that education about the risks of alcohol from a young age, and not criminalisation, was the only solution, because people were never going to stop drinking.

Adv Pothier agreed that education was of vital importance. Society treated the age of 18 as a “magical” age when all kinds of social restrictions were lifted. This culture needed to be reconsidered, and more general education into social responsibility for young people should be introduced.

Submission by Sakeliga

Mr Gerhard van Onselen, Senior Policy Analyst, Sakeliga, presented some comparative research on BAC limits in various countries. More than 50 percent of the countries of the world had a BAC limit between 0.05 percent and 0.08 percent. Furthermore, many countries implemented a sliding scale of sanctions for drinking and driving, with criminalisation only applying where the BAC was very high. It was instructive to compare South Africa with Brazil, a country with many similar social problems. It had implemented a zero-tolerance policy with a very low breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) limit of 0.05mg/l. It was also important to note that certain medications and foods contained amounts of alcohol that would show up when tested but were insufficient to induce intoxication. There was also some research suggesting that alcohol actually had a stimulant effect at low concentrations, instead of a sedative effect, although Mr van Onselen would defer to medical experts on this point. A zero percent limit would increase arrests for drunk driving, placing a burden on the criminal justice system and drawing resources away from more serious crimes. It would also have a negative spillover effect on the economy by lowering sales of liquor. He was not aware of any socio-economic impact assessment on the impact of a zero percent BAC limit that had been done. For all these reasons, Sakeliga did not support a zero percent BAC limit.

Discussion

Mr Mabhena said that draconian measures like reducing the BAC limit to zero percent would not have the intended effect, as the example of Brazil showed. He was disappointed that there had been no comparisons with SADC countries, however.

Submission by South Africans Against Drunk Driving (SADD)

Ms Caro Smit, Spokesperson, SADD, said that alcohol-related road deaths were a public health problem. It needed to be addressed in combination with related problems such as the wearing of seatbelts and speed limits near schools. The age limit should be raised from 18 to 21 and all alcohol advertising should be banned. She stressed that the human cost of alcohol-related road crashes should not become obscured by the statistics, and noted the burden placed on the health system, as well as the Departments of Social Development, Transport, Finance and Justice. The current BAC limits of 0.05 percent for general drivers and 0.02 percent for professional drivers were in line with World Health Organisation (WHO) best practice guidelines. The only legislative change that was needed was to lower the limit to 0.02 percent for novice drivers. Strict punishment of transgressors was important, although there should be a sliding scale of penalties, including fines paid into a special victims’ fund. She noted that most deaths were caused by drivers who were several times above the existing legal limit. A zero percent limit would also create practical problems and make it even harder to secure convictions by giving lawyers room to create doubt. According to the WHO, education and public information campaigns were only effective if they were combined with strict enforcement of the law. To this end, blood tests should be replaced with evidentiary breath alcohol testing. However, it was not practical to make offenders do community service in trauma units. It should rather be done in rehabilitation centres.

Submission by the South African Insurance Association (SAIA)

Mr Mzayiya Sondiyazi, Insurance Risks Manager, SAIA, explained that SAIA had consulted with all its members to get their view on the Bill. The only issue that had emerged was with Clause 46, which would introduce the zero percent BAC limit.

Ms Mashudu Mabogo, Legal Specialist, SAIA, said that it was imperative that any changes to legislation should involve due consideration of their consequences. She added that SAIA appreciated the intention of the change but worried about the unintended consequences arising, for example, from the fact that certain medications contained alcohol. A more holistic approach to addressing the problem of alcohol-related road deaths was required, and the change should be reconsidered.

Discussion

Mr Sithole asked for clarity on the thinking behind the statement that there should be due consideration of the consequences of legislative changes.

Ms Mabogo explained that the impact of legislative changes on the broader community should be considered. Did the end justify the means and were there other, better ways of achieving the same end? 

Mr Mabhena said that he had half expected SAIA to support the reduction of the BAC limit but he noted what had been said about the unintended consequences. It would also be naive to think that a zero percent limit would bring an end to drinking and driving.

Ms Mabogo replied that SAIA was not only concerned about the narrow interests of the insurance industry but also the overall sustainability and thriving of the economy.

Mr Sondiyazi added that the insurance industry was not just looking for ways to avoid making payouts to its customers, and insurers who had a very low claim-to-payment ratio were investigated by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA).

The meeting was adjourned.