What are the rights and obligations of traffic officers when screening for overloading of trucks?

Question:

Can you please advise me on the rules and regulations on the distance and circumstances that a traffic officer can order a truck driver to drive to a weighbridge from a mat scale?

Answer:

A traffic officer is given certain powers in terms of the National Road Traffic Act – specifically in this case in terms of Section 3 I – ascertain the dimensions of, the load on, or the mass, axle mass load or axle unit mass load of, any vehicle, or the mass of any combination of vehicles, loaded or unloaded, and if necessary for the purpose of ascertaining such mass, require any vehicle or combination of vehicles to proceed to a mass-meter or mass-measuring device, and if the mass of any vehicle or combination of vehicles exceeds the mass allowed in terms of this Act, prohibit the operation of the vehicle or combination of vehicles on a public road until the mass has been reduced or adjusted to comply with this Act: Provided that where the load on a vehicle includes any hazardous substance as contemplated in the Hazardous Substances Act, 1973 (Act 15 of 1973), the reduction and handling of the mass shall be undertaken in terms of that Act;

There is NO condition in these powers as to the maximum distance (or length of journey) relating to the direction to weigh. This would be for practical reasons.

In most cases the vehicle would have been subjected to some version of screening process (which in most cases is not more than 2km away for control more than for concern over distance from multi-deck scales).

The circumstance is clear – the provision is to “ascertain such mass” – so the officer can direct any vehicle whether “overloaded or not”.

Regards

Gavin

;

Gavin Kelly Technical & Operations Manager Road Freight Association

What are the rights and obligations of traffic officers when screening for overloading of trucks?

The world’s worst cities for targeted traffic jams

Targeted traffic jams are a sure-fire way to trigger road rage.

They delay journeys, making some drivers aggressive and therefore hazardous. They waste fuel, they’re noisy and they trigger pollution.

So, where in the world fares the worst for road congestion?

Sat-nav provider TomTom reckons Istanbul in Turkey is the most congested, ranking 1^st for its clogged-up evening rush hour and the quantity of time drivers spend toiling in site visitors.

The congestion index consists of measures of travel occasions in the course of peak periods, congestion levels based on the time and day, and delays encountered throughout a 30-minute commute.

TomTom’s annual visitors index is measured annually and appears into the effect of visitors congestion in more than 200 cities around the globe.

The index revealed that, if you have to drive in the course of the evening rush hour, you can expect to spend double the time in the auto, on average, stuck in site visitors than if you ventured out at an additional point in the day.

In the UK, Belfast was identified to have the most congested roads, with an average of 104 hours a year spent in site visitors. It was followed by Manchester (94 hours) and Edinburgh (93 hours).

Verify out the worst offending cities in the UK and about the world…

Worst UK cities for time spent per annum in congestion 

1. Belfast – 104 hours


2. Manchester – 94 hours


3. Edinburgh – 93 hours


4. London – 92 hours


5. Nottingham – 85 hours


6. Brighton & Hove – 84 hours


7. Bristol – 82 hours


8. Southampton – 80 hours


9. Leicester – 79 hours


10. Leeds – 78 hours

World rankings primarily based on general congestion levels

1. Istanbul


2. Mexico City


3. Rio de Janeiro


4. Moscow


5. Salvador


6. Recife


7. St Petersburg


8. Bucharest


9. Warsaw


10. Los Angeles

The world’s worst cities for targeted traffic jams

Justice Project offers Clarification on unpaid traffic fines

On Tuesday 9 February 2015 the Road Traffic infringement Agency put out a media release with the grossly misleading headline: “UNPAID FINES BLOCK LICENSING BY AUTHORITIES”.

While the content of the release vaguely clarifies the matter and correctly states that an Enforcement Order will result in licensing transactions, it is important that this not be confused with a “traffic fine”.

In terms of Section 20(2) of the AARTO Act, the Registrar may authorise the issue of an Enforcement Order if he has satisfied himself that both, an infringement notice and a courtesy letter have been served on the alleged infringer by the prescribed means. In the case of an infringement notice this could be service that occurs in person at the time of the alleged infringement or by registered mail if it is served after the fact and in the case of a courtesy letter, this must be served by registered mail. An enforcement order must also be served by registered mail.

The more recent licence renewal notifications contain a misleading statement which reads as follows:

” Your application for a new Driving Licence Card or PrDP will not be processed unless all Enforcement Orders have been settled and all penalties and courtesy letter fees for outstanding Infringements are settled. Visit www.aarto.gov.za“

While the first part of the statement is true, the second part of it is untrue and is used by licensing authorities to mislead people into believing that they are compelled to settle ALL outstanding infringement notices including but not limited to the illegal infringement notices the JMPD issued from 1 June 2010 to 21 December 2012. The findings of the Public Protector on this issue was that the JMPD violated the provisions of the AARTO Act and as a result, the improperly served infringement notices were “irregular” and amounted to maladministration.

Motorists are advised to look closely at the part of this notification to see if an Enforcement Order has been issued against their particulars. If it says “Enforcement Order outstanding: No/Nee” and a licence disc is not automatically printed, motorists should ask for a R114 eNaTIS statement to determine whether they have outstanding licensing fees or penalties owing on other vehicles registered in their name, or a warrant of arrest issued against them by courts in the jurisdictions outside of the operational areas of the Johannesburg and Tshwane Metro Police Departments.

Licensing authorities have become fond of preying on the ignorance of the average motorist who does not know and/or understand the legislative provisions that allow blocking of licensing transactions. They also appear to be of the opinion that traffic fines are somehow excluded from the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven which is enshrined in Section 35 of the Constitution.

The media release by the RTIA should be viewed as a statement by the RTIA that they are going to resume following the legislated provisions of the AARTO Act and nothing more. Motorists who ignore infringement notices issued against their names are doing themselves no favours and would be better advised to deal with their traffic fines as quickly as possible when they receive them.

Admitting guilt and paying a traffic fine, whether it is issued under the AARTO Act or the Criminal Procedure Act is ONE of the options but it is not the only one. Any person has the unalienable right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and is fully entitled to mount a defence against any accusation of violation of any law – including traffic infringements/offences.

The RTIA is also tasked with EDUCATING people about the AARTO Act, but as yet, almost 7 years into the so-called “pilot phase” of the implementation of the AARTO Act, it has done very little to educate motorists and this is very sad indeed.

Anyone who wishes to educate themselves on the provisions of both, the AARTO Act or the Criminal Procedure Act is welcome to visit JPSA’s dedicated AARTO website at www.aarto.co.za. This must not be confused with the RTIA’s AARTO website is located at www.aarto.gov.za which does not present any of the abuses that have been perpetrated by authorities operating under the AARTO Act.

Howard Dembovsky

National Chairman – Justice Project South Africa (NPC)

Justice Project offers Clarification on unpaid traffic fines

Important – There is NO new law allowing you to disobey traffic signals “after hours”

Question:

To whom this may concern, I would like some clarity on a matter. A while ago, there was an announcement that road users may treat red traffic lights as stop streets after 22h30. I did not research at the time whether this was ever promulgated into law but I assumed (now to my disadvantage) that this was accepted road safety law. I do recall that this came about as a result of increasing crime at night like hijacking, attempted break-ins, and traffic light theft where stationary vehicles were targeted.

Last week Friday (6/2/15), my partner and I were travelling back from a movie in Sandton at around 1am. On the presumption that this was accepted now in practice, he treated the red traffic light of corner Sandton Drive and Grayston Drive as a stop street. As he continued driving, an SAPS vehicle (not a JMPD vehicle/official) stopped him and fined him R500 for “jumping a red traffic light”. I tried to tell the Constable that this is a mistake because of the practice / rule / law that red traffic lights could be treated as stop streets after 22h30.

He denied that this was a rule and said to me that no such rule exists. Not longer than 5 minutes after we drove away after being fined, we stopped at the Sandton Drive – William Nicol Road traffic light and next to us, a JMPD vehicle (the official was on his cellular phone at the time) stopped for a short period and then drove after he saw the adjacent road was clear. The JMPD official therefore treated the traffic light as a stop street! Please would you let me know whether you are aware of the existence of this accepted practice / rule / law so that we can fight this? I would appreciate your urgent response so that I know how to treat this fine. I have tried doing research now on the web and I have hit a dead-end. Thank you and kind regards

Answer:

In short, traffic signals must be obeyed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and 365 days a year.

The National Road Traffic Act makes no provision for disobeying traffic signals “after hours” and although people like JMPD spokesperson, Edna Mamonyane have made reckless statements on radio to the contrary, unfortunately, this is not backed up by law.  This said, you may make a representation and/or defend any matter you have been accused of and some judicial officers may have sympathy over the specific circumstances under which the offence was committed.

Howard Dembovsky

National Chairman – Justice Project South Africa (NPC)

Also view:

Safe Driving at Intersections

;

Important – There is NO new law allowing you to disobey traffic signals “after hours”

Who should / must enforce traffic safety within gated estates /town house complexes?

Question:

Please assist us with this enquiry relating to complaints from 2 “private estates / town house complexes”

1. Meyersdal Eco Estate.

The Estate was created with the inclusion of public roads (municipal area)  and newly built private roads. It has a secure controlled access. The “board of directors / body corporate” have implement speed measurement  operations on the “public” and private built roads where photos of speed infringements are taken and the relevant resident receives a “fine” on their billing system. This includes any visitors to such resident who “speed”.

2. Serengethi Estate.

Resident is complaining of the “illegal’ use of ATV (quad bikes) by residents and security officials. Apparently one officer was charged by EMPD when using the ATV outside the estate on the patrol permeter (understandably).

As I understand:

(a)    Where the access is controlled such roads are not public roads. However the Meyersdal Estate has incorporated previous public roads where the municipality still services the road. Therefore if “speed” operations are being done privately can this be deemed a “criminal offence”???

(b)   If a serious “accident / crash” occurs in privately owned roads, surely then for legal/insurance purposes requisite criminal cases of reckless driving / culpable homicide are then opened.  How then do we deal with the road traffic legislation being able to facilitate the prosecution of unlicensed / unregistered ATV or any other traffic offence (eg. unlicensed drivers)  within the confines of such private roads?

Please advise.

Answer:

This was also discussed on the Arrive Alive website on the page titled “Rules of the Road and Road Safety within Gated Estates”

We would like to share a response from Howard Dembovsky from Justice Project:

“I am aware of both complaints with respect the residential estates cited in your email and this so-called debate that has been raging on for some time now – not only within these estates but in other gated communities throughout South Africa. I have long been of the opinion that the largely privileged gated communities are blatantly contravening the National Road Traffic Act and other laws in the Republic of South Africa.

There can be no doubt that in terms of the National Road Traffic Act only “authorised officers” are mandated and allowed to enforce its provisions and the definition of a “public road” therein is clear and makes no mention of “controlled access”.  It is therefore arguable that the same laws, rules and procedures apply within gated communities as apply anywhere outside of them.

During 2012, we lodged a complaint with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Road Traffic Management Corporation Anti-Corruption Unit with respect to unlawful speed enforcement taking place through a private entity in the Centurion Golf Estate in Tshwane. A complaint of fraud was registered against a Mr Barry Fryer Dudley of iCube who was issuing speeding fines against persons he alleged were speeding in that estate. The case number is Lyttleton n SAPS CAS 204/1/2013 and the charges were laid by Mr Jody Pillay, the Chief of the RTMC’s Anti-Corruption Unit.

We have also obtained legal opinion from Advocate Don Smart, who was the former Counsel to the Automobile Association of South Africa and I attach that opinion hereto. I think that it should answer most, if not all of your questions amply but should you wish to discuss the matter further, I would be more than happy to do so.

As you are aware, both Mr Tom Lessing and Mr Takalani Tshivhase have repeatedly registered complaints about the quad bikes formerly, and now Kawasaki Mule 610 ATVs, which are both, left hand drive vehicles and bear a manufacturer’s sticker stating: “WARNING: Use of this vehicle on public roads and paved surfaces is hazardous. This vehicle is designed and equipped for off-highway use only. Do not operate this vehicle on public roads and pave surfaces” being operated on the public roads within Serengeti. Complaints about civilians – often security guards issuing “speeding fines” have also been lodged by various parties.

What I find utterly astounding is that if any unlicensed and unregistered motor vehicle was operated, or even found to be on a public road anywhere outside of any estate, it would immediately be impounded and the owner prosecuted accordingly. Complaints around this matter have been flying around for more than 18 months now and the apparent reluctance of the EMPD to do anything about it can only be viewed as ludicrous and tantamount to dereliction of its duty under the Constitution. Similarly, if any civilian were to arbitrarily start issuing their own traffic fines in the street, they would be summarily arrested and charged with impersonating a traffic officer, at the very least.

For some obscure reason, it would appear that when it comes to gated communities, the law has been cast aside in favour of allowing these suburbs of privilege to operate as mini-Republics and/or homelands within the Republic of South Africa.

It is my sincere hope that something will eventually be done about what is going on, particularly in Serengeti Wildlife Estate since it is only going to be a matter of time until a collision involving one of their unregistered and unlicensed motor vehicles does occur. If and when that happens, the victims thereof will arguably have recourse against both, the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department and the Gauteng Department of Community Safety for their failure to act within the framework of the Constitution and actively prevent these vehicles from operating on the public roads in and around that estate.

I am not suggesting for one minute that Serengeti Wildlife Estate or Meyersdal Eco Estate should be exclusively targeted since they are not the only places where this nonsense is going down but a start has to be made somewhere and since you have had complaints lodged with you by various persons perhaps it is with these 2 estates that a start should be made?

Best Regards,

;

Howard Dembovsky

National Chairman – Justice Project South Africa (NPC)

Additional Info:

“On the issue of gated estates as you know I was appointed by Pather and Pather attorneys Durban as consultant counsel working with Adv O Moosa SC who was the Senior in a matter N Singh v Mnt Edgecombe Country Club Management Association, but I am not sure who the counsel is now. Mr Sivi Pather can be contacted as to the current status of this case.

I suggest that this case is supported and should be the main thrust to address the problem and followed as it is in KZN and the one provincial division appeal case S v Dillon that supports the (logical) conclusion as to the applicability of the NRTA in gated estates was taken in KZN. Thus on the stare decisis principle any single judge would be bound to follow that ruling. I am very confident that the Supreme Court of Appeal would uphold what was ruled in this and the other cases I have quoted in the opinion given to your attorney.

If I can be of any further assistance please let me know.

Kind regards

Don Smart”

;

Also view:

“Rules of the Road and Road Safety within Gated Estates”

Who should / must enforce traffic safety within gated estates /town house complexes?

Road user pleads for visible and effective traffic enforcement on route between Krugersdorp and Pretoria

We would like to share an email to the Arrive Alive website by a concerned road user who regularly travels between Krugersdorp and Pretoria:

” There are dangerous drivers between 05h10 and 07h00 on route between Krugersdorp and Pretoria.

They drive at extremely high speeds, drive up to the cars in front of them until it seems if they are the trailors of the cars (which is not far from the truth – their manners remind me of trailor trash).

If the cars, who are overtaking other cars,  do not brake sharp to switch to the left lane so that the speeder can have the right hand lane all by him- or herself, they pass them unsafely near them in the left hand lane, then they switch sharply to the right hand lane – right in front of the car who were actually the one who did not break the traffic rules.

Then they brake right in front of the driver, who was actually driving at 122km/h a little above the speed limit and drive extremely slowly for a while. The poor driver can not do anything, because there are cars in the left hand line. After a while the bad driver looses interest, or remember that he or she needs to speeds and off they go to find another driver to be intimidated.

We need protection against these traffic offenders.The person iin the wrong is not the one who drives at 122km/h while he or she is overtaking another car. It is the one who drives at such a speed that they catch up with drivers driving at 122km/h, which is already above the speed limit.

If these drivers are not taken off the N14, we are going to have serious accidents on this road, especially near Diepsloot, where pedestrians passes the N14 via foot. It is still very dark, therefore it is impossible to see a pedestrian or any other person/hazard before it is too late while driving at those reckless speeds. It helps on the N14 (behind Centurion) that speed cameras are manned almost always.

Can it please be done on the N14 between Krugersdorp and Pretoria between 05h00 and 09h00 and then again in the afternoons between 14h30 and 18h00? It works on the N1, where drivers obeys the traffic rules because of visible policing.

If it can not be done, please provide us with a website where we can report such drivers without disclosing our own identities. If they are that reckless on the road, and the person whom they have intimidated reports them, i am quite sure they will find and attack them.

By doing so, a data basis can be build up against traffic offenders – and we wash each others hands.

Such a data basis can be used to prove that a driver does it always and that it was not in a moment of madness. It can help the police to get all their information during road blocks. It can be advertised as well that we can report such drivers without revealing our own identities.

I also think we have to make people aware of these dangerous, reckless, speeding drivers. I have reported one on your site today – CT 93 JL GP. This person seems to be aggressive and dangerous and I really do not want to meet him face to face although I was so intimidated by his dangerous overtaking that I took the time to write the report.

What we need is basic information – the number of the car should be compulsary, but the colour, make and other detailed fields should not be compulsary to be completed.

I think it would be a great idea to make the following video:

1) car passing another car, a little above the speed limit

2) one coming up at high speed from the back, until too close to the driver

3) Great – now the reckless driver has the attention of the one who is driving in front and being intimidated.

4)  BAd driver passsing on left hand side, too close to the driver he/she wants to intimidate.

5)  BAd driver braking in front of the driver wgo is not in the wrong and who did travel at the speed limit

6)  AHA- moment – BAd driver has the full attention of the alerted driver

7)  Alerted driver see the following detail as clear as crystal – make of the car, registration number, colour

8)  AHA moment – report incident via cell phone or website that needs few information

9)  Traffic police alerted in the nearest town

10) The face of the fool who ensured that all his detail could be remembered because of his own aggressive attitude towards other road users – BEHIND BARS.

11) Alcohol test being done – to proof he/she is drunk or to proof he/she knew what they did

12) The message – if you want to ignore the traffic rules, you have to ensure that you do not offend the other users of the road. Thing is – that is your way of driving, your habit. The possibility that you can have more than one report with regard to your bad driving on one piece of the road- such as the N14 between Krugersdorp and Pretoria (mornings between 05h00 and 09h00) and the other way round (evenings between 14h30 and 18h30), is quite large.

We need to teach bad drivers a lesson – the others who plan carefully, who leave their houses in time and who take the punch for being late due to their own bad time management is fed up with their aggressive use of the raods.

In fact, they are welcome to build their own roads where they can kill themselves due to their bad driving skills.

This site could be perfect for launching such a shortened version to build a data basis of bad drivers.  And it can be very handy when they want to renew their drivers licences. If a lot of people were so offended by their driving that they took the time to write a report, these bad drivers certainly need to be retrained so that they can become responsible users of our roads.”

;

;

Road user pleads for visible and effective traffic enforcement on route between Krugersdorp and Pretoria

Road user pleads for visible and effective traffic enforcement on route between Krugersdorp and Pretoria

We would like to share an email to the Arrive Alive website by a concerned road user who regularly travels between Krugersdorp and Pretoria:

” There are dangerous drivers between 05h10 and 07h00 on route between Krugersdorp and Pretoria.

They drive at extremely high speeds, drive up to the cars in front of them until it seems if they are the trailors of the cars (which is not far from the truth – their manners remind me of trailor trash).

If the cars, who are overtaking other cars,  do not brake sharp to switch to the left lane so that the speeder can have the right hand lane all by him- or herself, they pass them unsafely near them in the left hand lane, then they switch sharply to the right hand lane – right in front of the car who were actually the one who did not break the traffic rules.

Then they brake right in front of the driver, who was actually driving at 122km/h a little above the speed limit and drive extremely slowly for a while. The poor driver can not do anything, because there are cars in the left hand line. After a while the bad driver looses interest, or remember that he or she needs to speeds and off they go to find another driver to be intimidated.

We need protection against these traffic offenders.The person iin the wrong is not the one who drives at 122km/h while he or she is overtaking another car. It is the one who drives at such a speed that they catch up with drivers driving at 122km/h, which is already above the speed limit.

If these drivers are not taken off the N14, we are going to have serious accidents on this road, especially near Diepsloot, where pedestrians passes the N14 via foot. It is still very dark, therefore it is impossible to see a pedestrian or any other person/hazard before it is too late while driving at those reckless speeds. It helps on the N14 (behind Centurion) that speed cameras are manned almost always.

Can it please be done on the N14 between Krugersdorp and Pretoria between 05h00 and 09h00 and then again in the afternoons between 14h30 and 18h00? It works on the N1, where drivers obeys the traffic rules because of visible policing.

If it can not be done, please provide us with a website where we can report such drivers without disclosing our own identities. If they are that reckless on the road, and the person whom they have intimidated reports them, i am quite sure they will find and attack them.

By doing so, a data basis can be build up against traffic offenders – and we wash each others hands.

Such a data basis can be used to prove that a driver does it always and that it was not in a moment of madness. It can help the police to get all their information during road blocks. It can be advertised as well that we can report such drivers without revealing our own identities.

I also think we have to make people aware of these dangerous, reckless, speeding drivers. I have reported one on your site today – CT 93 JL GP. This person seems to be aggressive and dangerous and I really do not want to meet him face to face although I was so intimidated by his dangerous overtaking that I took the time to write the report.

What we need is basic information – the number of the car should be compulsary, but the colour, make and other detailed fields should not be compulsary to be completed.

I think it would be a great idea to make the following video:

1) car passing another car, a little above the speed limit

2) one coming up at high speed from the back, until too close to the driver

3) Great – now the reckless driver has the attention of the one who is driving in front and being intimidated.

4)  BAd driver passsing on left hand side, too close to the driver he/she wants to intimidate.

5)  BAd driver braking in front of the driver wgo is not in the wrong and who did travel at the speed limit

6)  AHA- moment – BAd driver has the full attention of the alerted driver

7)  Alerted driver see the following detail as clear as crystal – make of the car, registration number, colour

8)  AHA moment – report incident via cell phone or website that needs few information

9)  Traffic police alerted in the nearest town

10) The face of the fool who ensured that all his detail could be remembered because of his own aggressive attitude towards other road users – BEHIND BARS.

11) Alcohol test being done – to proof he/she is drunk or to proof he/she knew what they did

12) The message – if you want to ignore the traffic rules, you have to ensure that you do not offend the other users of the road. Thing is – that is your way of driving, your habit. The possibility that you can have more than one report with regard to your bad driving on one piece of the road- such as the N14 between Krugersdorp and Pretoria (mornings between 05h00 and 09h00) and the other way round (evenings between 14h30 and 18h30), is quite large.

We need to teach bad drivers a lesson – the others who plan carefully, who leave their houses in time and who take the punch for being late due to their own bad time management is fed up with their aggressive use of the raods.

In fact, they are welcome to build their own roads where they can kill themselves due to their bad driving skills.

This site could be perfect for launching such a shortened version to build a data basis of bad drivers.  And it can be very handy when they want to renew their drivers licences. If a lot of people were so offended by their driving that they took the time to write a report, these bad drivers certainly need to be retrained so that they can become responsible users of our roads.”

;

;

Road user pleads for visible and effective traffic enforcement on route between Krugersdorp and Pretoria

It is legal for a person/s in unmarked car taking videos at intersections for which traffic fines are sent?

Question:

I would like to know if it is legal for a person/s in unmarked car to be taking videos at intersections for which traffic fines are been sent.

I have been watching 2 cars at an intersection in Port Elizabeth, white BMW and a red golf,who’;s occupants are not in uniform taking videos of cars and I know of a fine that has been received at that intersection.

There are no warning signs of cameras in the vicinity.

Answer:

I have heard of this happening in Cape Town and now you say that it is happening in Port Elizabeth too.

There are no TCSP guidelines for this type of exercise and since no measurement as such is taking place, they would probably not be deemed necessary.  My understanding of these exercises is that the persons involved in them simply park off and film people disregarding stop signs etc.  Insofar as warning signs go, if you think about it, a sign warning people to abide by traffic signs sounds a little bizarre and it is undeniable that if a command sign (such as a stop sign) exists, motorists have a duty to obey it.

;

In my view, there is little legally wrong with this so long as the traffic fines that get issued are issued by a qualified traffic officer.  It does however make me wonder why it is that prosecutors would be willing to prosecute these matters and not willing to do anything about footage captured on dash cams.  The other problem I have with this type of enforcement is the fact that the offender is not stopped at the time.  Disregarding a stop sign is as dangerous as disregarding a red traffic signal and sending people fines in the post has limited value with respect to road safety, particularly since doing so could lead to a collision and the injury/death of others.  There is absolutely no replacement whatsoever for visible, physical policing and what concerns me most about the proliferation of this kind of exercise is that it leads to lazy policing.  After all, if they can catch multiple offenders on video and send them fines in the post, why would they be interested in rather forcing compliance by stopping offenders at the time and letting others see that physical enforcement is happening?

;

Unfortunately, it all comes back to the fact that traffic policing has come to mean revenue generation and that is the long and short of it.

;

Best Regards,

;

Howard Dembovsky

National Chairman – Justice Project South Africa (NPC)

Also view:

Safe Driving at Intersections

It is legal for a person/s in unmarked car taking videos at intersections for which traffic fines are sent?

How a lot your traffic ticket will bump your automobile insurance premium?

Amongst all other aspects equal, site visitors ticket signifies that your car insurance premium will go up.

Based on the moving violation, acquiring only one visitors ticket can increase your car insurance premium by as a lot as 37 percent, according to an evaluation of more than 15,000 policy quotes carried out by Insurox.com in New Jersey.

The study is created on a single incident. The Auto Insurance premium may be higher for certain drivers, especially for these with multiple violations on their records.

According to the study, most drivers, regardless of the insurance coverage firm will see boost on their automobile insurance coverage premium in between 8-37% on a single targeted traffic ticket.
Insurance price calculations vary drastically from firm to firm, and most insurance organizations are not offering details to the public on precisely how prices are calculated.

Visitors Tickets can bump you insurance coverage premium as considerably as 37 percent

Here’s the list of how much traffic ticket will improve your auto insurance coverage premium, in New Jersey determined by Insurox.com:

1. 
   

   &gt&gt Speeding 1-14: 8 %

   
   


2. 
   

   &gt&gt Speeding 15-29: 12 %

   
   


3. 
   

   &gt&gt Speeding 30 mph over: 20 percent

   
   


4. 
   

   &gt&gt DUI first offense: 26 %

   
   


5. 
   

   &gt&gt Driving with out a license or permit: 19 percent

   
   


6. 
   

   &gt&gt Careless driving: 37 %

   
   


7. 
   

   &gt&gt Failure to cease: 23 percent

   
   


8. 
   

   &gt&gt Improper turn: 22 percent

   
   


9. 
   

   &gt&gt Improper passing: 18 %

   
   


10. 
    

    &gt&gt Following too close/tailgating: 21 %

    
    


11. 
    

    &gt&gt Failure to yield: 17 %

    
    


12. 
    

    &gt&gt No car insurance coverage: 16 percent

    
    


13. 
    

    &gt&gt Minor Moving Violation: 10 %

    
    


14. 
    

    &gt&gt Unsafe Driving: 12 %

    
    

Even so, drivers with a history of repeated moving violations like driving beneath the influence, leaving the scene of an accident, and careless driving – are always charged greater insurance premiums.

If you seeing huge improve due to the fact of you moving violation, try to get the all discounts that are provided by your insurance company so you will “neutralize” your traffic ticket.

If you feel like trying a new insurer — and possibly saving some cash while you’re at it — take a totally free Insurox quote or compare quotes online.

How a lot your traffic ticket will bump your automobile insurance premium?

Be Cautious of those “anticipating” the green traffic lights at Intersections!

The safety of road users at intersections and traffic lights have become a major concern. The biggest threat remain blatant lawlessness amongst drivers and them not obeying the Rules of the Road!

Amongst the types of Road Traffic Crashes that are most dangerous are the T-Bone crashes where one vehicle collides at speed into the side of another. The side-walls of a vehicle offers much less protection than the engine and airbags situated at the front of a vehicle.

One of the causes of these crashes are the so-called “Red Light Accellerators and Green Light Anticipators” – Some drivers increase speed to try and get across the lights that has just turned red whilst others start driving too early in anticipation of the light going to turn green!

This is best illustrated by the above video sent to the Arrive Alive website!

View Video

Also view:

Crash Types and Types of Injuries 

Safe driving at Intersections / Intersection Safety

Be Cautious of those “anticipating” the green traffic lights at Intersections!

Motorists want a lot more traffic officers

25/6/14

By Bob Taylor

As several as 60% of motorists think there are not adequate police officers on the road to enforce driving laws, according to an RAC survey.

More than half (51%) of drivers consider it is unlikely that motorists will ever get picked up for texting whilst stopped in traffic.

And 40 per cent reckon they stand little likelihood of becoming stopped by police for aggressive driving, the poll of 1,526 drivers identified.

The investigation also showed that only 29% think drivers will get into trouble for texting on the move even though 42% think it is unlikely.

24% consider tailgaters will be pulled more than

For the new offences of tailgating and middle lane-hogging only 24% and 22% respectively believe motorists are most likely to be pulled up by a targeted traffic officer.

The only offences motorists believe are dealt with effectively are the ones that are enforced by means of cameras such as speeding and traffic light violations.

A total of 45% reckon drivers are likely to get caught for speeding, even though 46% consider those running red lights will get caught.

Of these motorists questioned who have speeding points on their licences, 49% stated they had been trapped by a speed camera, although only 24% have been caught by a police officer.

67% break 70mph motorway limit

The survey, the 26th annual poll of its type by the RAC, also showed that 34% are concerned about other drivers talking on hand-held mobile phones and 22% are worried about other motorists breaking traffic laws generally.

In addition, 75% of motorists reported often seeing other people speaking on mobile phones, with 44% saying they see this taking place throughout most of their vehicle journeys. Yet only 8% of drivers admit to making use of a hand-held phone on most journeys.

On speeding, around 40% admitted breaking the speed limit on non-motorway routes, even though as a lot of as 67% owned up to exceeding the 70mph limit on motorways. A total of 70% of drivers supported raising the motorway limit to 80mph.

Potholes had been a worry for 41% of motorists in this year’;s survey, compared with 36 per cent last year, whilst 47% place the expense of fuel as their primary motoring concern in spite of reductions in rates at the pumps of late.

31% worried young children could be distracted by smartphones

As a lot of as 69% reckoned kids have been as safe, if not safer, on the roads than when they have been young but 31% have been worried that youngsters could get distracted by smartphones whilst making use of roads.

4 in 5 motorists felt uncomfortable driving on icy roads, with practically all (96%) avoiding driving in the snow if at all feasible. Younger drivers had been far more concerned about driving in wintry circumstances than older ones.

RAC technical director David Bizley stated: “Our research shows that millions of law-abiding motorists are frustrated with the reduction of site visitors police and believe that the chances of drivers getting pulled up for breaking the law are now minimal.

“Motorists are tired of continually seeing other drivers breaking the law and getting away with it so it is hardly surprising that they want to see a greater police presence on our roads to enforce motoring legislation a lot more successfully, which would also act as a genuine deterrent.”

Motorists want a lot more traffic officers

Motorists want a lot more targeted traffic officers

25/6/14

By Bob Taylor

As many as 60% of motorists believe there are not enough police officers on the road to enforce driving laws, according to an RAC survey.

More than half (51%) of drivers think it is unlikely that motorists will ever get picked up for texting while stopped in traffic.

And 40 per cent reckon they stand little chance of being stopped by police for aggressive driving, the poll of 1,526 drivers found.

The research also showed that only 29% think drivers will get into trouble for texting on the move while 42% think it is unlikely.

24% think tailgaters will be pulled over

For the new offences of tailgating and middle lane-hogging only 24% and 22% respectively think motorists are likely to be pulled up by a traffic officer.

The only offences motorists believe are dealt with effectively are the ones that are enforced via cameras such as speeding and traffic light violations.

A total of 45% reckon drivers are likely to get caught for speeding, while 46% think those running red lights will get caught.

Of those motorists questioned who have speeding points on their licences, 49% said they were trapped by a speed camera, while only 24% were caught by a police officer.

67% break 70mph motorway limit

The survey, the 26th annual poll of its kind by the RAC, also showed that 34% are concerned about other drivers talking on hand-held mobile phones and 22% are worried about other motorists breaking traffic laws generally.

In addition, 75% of motorists reported regularly seeing other people talking on mobile phones, with 44% saying they see this happening during most of their car journeys. Yet only 8% of drivers admit to using a hand-held phone on most journeys.

On speeding, around 40% admitted breaking the speed limit on non-motorway routes, while as many as 67% owned up to exceeding the 70mph limit on motorways. A total of 70% of drivers supported raising the motorway limit to 80mph.

Potholes were a worry for 41% of motorists in this year’;s survey, compared with 36 per cent last year, while 47% put the cost of fuel as their main motoring concern despite reductions in prices at the pumps of late.

31% worried children could be distracted by smartphones

As many as 69% reckoned children were as safe, if not safer, on the roads than when they were young but 31% were worried that children could get distracted by smartphones while using roads.

4 in 5 motorists felt uncomfortable driving on icy roads, with nearly all (96%) avoiding driving in the snow if at all possible. Younger drivers were more concerned about driving in wintry conditions than older ones.

RAC technical director David Bizley said: “Our research shows that millions of law-abiding motorists are frustrated with the reduction of traffic police and believe that the chances of drivers being pulled up for breaking the law are now minimal.

“Motorists are tired of constantly seeing other drivers breaking the law and getting away with it so it is hardly surprising that they want to see a greater police presence on our roads to enforce motoring legislation more effectively, which would also act as a genuine deterrent.”

Motorists want a lot more targeted traffic officers

How far should a speed camera be placed in relation to the distance from a speed traffic sign?

Question:

How far should a speed camera be placed in relation to the distance from a speed traffic sign?

Answer:

There is a prosecution guideline that addresses it. I copy the front page and par 1.4 for you.

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT (TCSP)

Prosecuting Guidelines for Speed Measuring Equipment and Traffic Light Violation Monitoring Equipment

Published: DECEMBER 2012

;

August 1999       Version 1.1

as amended

January 2003      Version 1.2

January 2003      Version 1.3

January 2006      Version 1.4

February 2012   Version 1.5

November 2012                Version 1.6

1.4          Speed Zone Requirements – No prosecution may be instituted where

(i)            the speed measurement was taken within 300 meters of the commencement of the speed limit zone.

;

Alta

Alta Swanepoel & Associates

How far should a speed camera be placed in relation to the distance from a speed traffic sign?

How far should a speed camera be placed in relation to the distance from a speed traffic sign?

Question:

How far should a speed camera be placed in relation to the distance from a speed traffic sign?

Answer:

There is a prosecution guideline that addresses it. I copy the front page and par 1.4 for you.

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT (TCSP)

Prosecuting Guidelines for Speed Measuring Equipment and Traffic Light Violation Monitoring Equipment

Published: DECEMBER 2012

;

August 1999       Version 1.1

as amended

January 2003      Version 1.2

January 2003      Version 1.3

January 2006      Version 1.4

February 2012   Version 1.5

November 2012                Version 1.6

1.4          Speed Zone Requirements – No prosecution may be instituted where

(i)            the speed measurement was taken within 300 meters of the commencement of the speed limit zone.

;

Alta

Alta Swanepoel & Associates

How far should a speed camera be placed in relation to the distance from a speed traffic sign?

How far should a speed camera be placed in relation to the distance from a speed traffic sign?

Question:

How far should a speed camera be placed in relation to the distance from a speed traffic sign?

Answer:

There is a prosecution guideline that addresses it. I copy the front page and par 1.4 for you.

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT (TCSP)

Prosecuting Guidelines for Speed Measuring Equipment and Traffic Light Violation Monitoring Equipment

Published: DECEMBER 2012

;

August 1999       Version 1.1

as amended

January 2003      Version 1.2

January 2003      Version 1.3

January 2006      Version 1.4

February 2012   Version 1.5

November 2012                Version 1.6

1.4          Speed Zone Requirements – No prosecution may be instituted where

(i)            the speed measurement was taken within 300 meters of the commencement of the speed limit zone.

;

Alta

Alta Swanepoel & Associates

How far should a speed camera be placed in relation to the distance from a speed traffic sign?

How far should a speed camera be placed in relation to the distance from a speed traffic sign?

Question:

How far should a speed camera be placed in relation to the distance from a speed traffic sign?

Answer:

There is a prosecution guideline that addresses it. I copy the front page and par 1.4 for you.

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT (TCSP)

Prosecuting Guidelines for Speed Measuring Equipment and Traffic Light Violation Monitoring Equipment

Published: DECEMBER 2012

;

August 1999       Version 1.1

as amended

January 2003      Version 1.2

January 2003      Version 1.3

January 2006      Version 1.4

February 2012   Version 1.5

November 2012                Version 1.6

1.4          Speed Zone Requirements – No prosecution may be instituted where

(i)            the speed measurement was taken within 300 meters of the commencement of the speed limit zone.

;

Alta

Alta Swanepoel & Associates

How far should a speed camera be placed in relation to the distance from a speed traffic sign?

Can a traffic officer summons a coach(bus) driver if the passengers on board did not wear their safety belts?

Question:

Can a traffic officer summons a coach(bus) driver if the passengers on board did not wear their safety belts. I am talking about 65 seater double decker.

Answer:

Technically a double deck bus does not have to have seatbelts fitted. However reg 213 states that if a seatbelt is fitted to a seat the person must wear it. Subreg (11) states that the driver must ensure the passengers wear their seat belts, so yes.

Alta

Alta Swanepoel

Can a traffic officer summons a coach(bus) driver if the passengers on board did not wear their safety belts?