- Cost of installation and method of enforcement should be reviewed
The Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) has, after all, commenced enforcement of the installation of Automated Speed Limiting Device in all public transport vehicles. The proposal had been on the table for more than two years but was resisted by transporters who argued that it was another ploy to fleece them of N36, 000 by the commission. Arguing so persuasively, the transporters said they did not have to cough up such a princely sum at a time the economy was biting so hard. Cost of replacing buses has gone up, especially with the high exchange rate and the ban on importation of used vehicles through the land borders.
Besides, a new policy on replacement of Drivers Licences and motor number plates was recently imposed on motorists, making life more difficult. Corruption is a major bane of running successful transport business in the country. As the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources confirmed while speaking on the high cost of food, all the security agencies, without exception, are at various points on the highways extorting money from transporters under the guise of checking vehicles or particulars.
It is therefore understandable that protests greeted the enforcement of the speed limiting rule. Some Nigerians opposed to the measure contend that the method being introduced has become outdated, rather calling for the introduction of the Spider method if it must be introduced. The method, it is said, allows the commission officials to gauge the speed of a vehicle from a distance, and impose the necessary fine. This method would not impose the burden on motorists. Others contend that rather than opt for the Electronic Speed Limiting Device, Nigeria could have embraced the Mechanical Device that still allows for discretion on the part of the driver. He could, in emergency situations, override the warning by the limiter. The electronic device does not allow such discretion as the driver cannot go beyond the installed limit.
The speed limit is another area of contention. By the FRSC mode, the upper limit is universal, cutting across all Nigerian roads. The practice in other countries is to allow a high upper limit and then fix limits according to the nature of the road. Thereby, the limit to be imposed on an eight-lane highway would be different from that of single lane inter-state roads.
But, the FRSC has been relentless in claiming that the carnage on the roads has left it with no choice in making the intervention. Its image-makers say road crashes claim more lives in the country than malaria. On the view that the commission lacks the power to make and enforce the rule, attention has been drawn to section 10(3)(m) of the FRSC (Establishment) Act of 2007 and the National Road Traffic Regulation of 2012 as sources of their power.
This won the commission the legal argument. The House of Representatives intervened by starting on a rather truculent noteand backed down when the issues were well canvassed by the FRSC and other stakeholders. The commission pointed out that it did not unilaterally decide the type and cost of the device to be allowed. It told the lawmakers that the Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON) and the National Automotive Design and Development Council of Nigeria (NADDCN) participated in the process.
There is no doubt that, whatever the argument, something drastic must be done to make our roads safer. It is true that the government has not done enough, but the people will always carry the can, hence the need to limit speed. The roads are generally bad; even those recently constructed are riddled with potholes, leading to avoidable crashes. We, therefore, support the measure taken by the FRSC, especially since a time had been allowed for advisory enforcement. We call on the commission to explore means of reviewing the cost of the speed limiters in view of the economic crunch. Equally due for review is the sometimes crude method of enforcement by some of its overzealous officials
