The Federal Road Safety Commission’s commencement of enforcement of its mandatory speed limiting device on commercial vehicles from February 1 deserves close scrutiny. While the objective of reducing road traffic crashes is unassailable, there is an overriding need for discretion to avoid creating new problems, and impose new burdens on motorists by extending it to private vehicles.
Preceded by months of publicity, the enforcement has snagged a number of commercial vehicles on highways in various parts of the country. Indeed, the initial commencement date of the enforcement had been shifted after protests as stakeholders raised issues with the project.
For the FRSC, speed limiting devices, beginning with commercial vehicles, is a major plank of its efforts to impose sanity on Nigerian roads. Apart from the poor state of Nigeria’s over 200,000 kilometres of roads that ferry over 90 per cent of all passengers and freight and poor maintenance of vehicles, speeding is reckoned to be responsible for a majority of RTCs. The carnage has continued unabated. In its half-year report covering the first six months of 2016, the FRSC reported a total of 4,809 accidents nationwide, involving a total of 31,701 road users in which 2,653 persons died and 14,998 were injured. Some 4,602 accidents were recorded in the corresponding period of 2015 with 2,523 persons killed and 14,493 others injured. Boboye Oyeyemi, the FRSC Corps Marshal, said 5,400 persons died in the 12,077 crashes recorded in 2015. For him, “most of the road crashes are preventable if we are able to bring down the speed…” In 2013, 6,450 persons died, bringing the total number of reported deaths in RTCs from 2009 till that time to 30,435 souls. According to the World Health Organisation, Nigeria is the “most dangerous” place in Africa for road users and had the world’s second highest rate of road accidents among 193 countries surveyed in 2011. Any measure to remedy the situation, especially one adopting technology, is therefore most welcome.
However, the concerns raised by stakeholders should not be brushed aside and we are not persuaded that private vehicles should be affected. One allegation by fleet operators, re-echoed by the House of Representatives, is that the speed limiters approved for use were “outdated.” The onus is on the commission to prove otherwise, though it says it partners stakeholders, including the Standards Organisation of Nigeria. We also deplore the tight deadlines FRSC sets to commence implementation of its brain waves as if the country’s collapse is imminent. In civilised climes, it takes years of public discourse for new measures to move from proposal to implementation. Lawmakers have had to intervene to compel FRSC to extend deadlines for the introduction of new schemes, whether it is new vehicle number plates, new driving licences or reflector stickers.
Worse, it invariably imposes new, unplanned expenditure on vehicle owners. Some reports claim installation will cost between N36,000 and N45,000 per vehicle, a burden many private and corporate operators find odious amid inflation, idle fleets and poor patronage of goods and services. The FRSC has, in conjunction with the states that it entices with the bigger slice of the pie, repeatedly changed the vehicle number plate and driving licence, imposing ever higher costs of acquisition.
In the United Kingdom, a proposal to introduce speed limiters has been subjected to lengthy public discourse, studies by a government panel and full participation by all stakeholders, including fleet operators. The European Union, where 30,000 people die each year and 1.5 million others are injured in RTCs, intends to operate satellite-based Intelligent Speed Authority by 2020 that will beam limits automatically to cars from a database or smart cameras. In other jurisdictions, regulations are made compelling only new cars manufactured locally or imported to have in-built limiters; while usage for older vehicles is either voluntary or adequate time is given for compliance. The American Trucking Association is currently fighting a government proposal to have mandatory speed limiters in heavy duty trucks plying US highways. Limiting devices are for certain categories of heavy duty trucks only.
Experts raise concerns that it makes no sense to have maximum speeds of 100 km per hour on super highways; that tight limits may in fact cause accidents. Instead, they suggest the UK-style display technology that alerts when the limit is crossed that will leave the discretion to the driver. How, others ask, could everyone maintain the same speed on an expressway? How about concerns over pursuing armed robbers, kidnappers or other assailants? There are occasions when a driver must necessarily raise speed to avoid a collision or a pedestrian.
Some experts have also warned that on-board electronics on newer vehicles sometimes malfunction when external devices are fitted, while some vehicles already come with limiters from their countries of origin. Do we have enough suppliers of the devices? The limited number of vehicle plate plants created scarcity and inevitable corruption when new plates were introduced recently, just as logistical ill-preparedness created similar hardship for those seeking the new driving licences across the country. The FRSC needs to restore its past image of integrity, dented over the years by misbehaving marshals and a preoccupation with revenue. Philip Shuaibu of the House of Representatives alleges that the agency’s claim of the last vehicle number plates having embedded recognition chips was a ruse, saying, “today, the plates have no chips and cannot identify users.” The FRSC should canvass greater government investment on highways, road furniture, signs and technology as is done everywhere else.
We stoutly oppose extending this measure to private vehicles. With the current alarming rate of insecurity, a private vehicle limited to 100km per hour easily becomes a target of hoodlums and bandits who can out-speed it even with a common motorcycle. This is dangerous at a time when armed robbers and kidnappers operate across the country without let or hindrance. Let all agencies step up public enlightenment and enforcement. Possibly the greatest cause of recklessness on the highways, including speeding, is lack of effective, continuous enforcement of the law. Fostering a culture of safe driving involves robust public enlightenment and all-year-round corruption-free enforcement. Motorists break the rules with impunity because they are not punished. Instead of constant preventing, apprehending and imposing the law, police ignore offenders or catch a few only for extortion. FRSC teams lay ambush within the city precincts instead of effectively patrolling the inter-city highways.
The FRSC will need to be creative with its current enforcement of limiters on trucks: safety, not revenue generation, should be the goal. Its objectives, as spelt out in the FRSC Act 2007, are clear on this, with “making the highways safe for motorists and other users” and “preventing or minimising accidents” the priorities.
In conjunction with the federal and state governments, it should strive to match global standards by the deployment of technology to check speeding and other traffic offences. The UK, US and South Africa deploy speed cameras, radar speed guns, vehicle-activated road signs that show a driver that they are exceeding the speed limit and community speed watch, a partnership between local people, the police, the fire service and local councils.
Needed are more funding for agencies, investment in road infrastructure as well as diligent continuous enforcement at state and federal levels to inculcate a culture of safe driving habits.
