Dear Editor,
My goal in this piece is not to discuss recent political developments, at least not yet, but rather to address the ongoing problem of dangerous driving. From the East Bank to the East Coast and everywhere in between, there seems to be no end to this issue affecting Guyanese people. Reckless motorists constantly violate laws, and those responsible for upholding and enforcing these laws often either break them themselves or display remarkable incompetence in executing their duties. Our roadways have become extremely unsafe.
The Oxford Dictionary defines “lawless” as something or someone that is not controlled by laws or that disobeys or ignores the law, often in a wild, violent, or anarchic manner. This definition sadly reflects the behaviour of many irresponsible motorists, who seem to believe their actions are justified. In particular, motorcyclists often ride in the middle of the road and cross the centre lines, as if such behaviour is acceptable and normal. The ongoing lack of mirrors on motorcycles and the limited use of indicators by motorcar drivers pose a serious risk to the rider, pedestrians, and other law-abiding motorists. Furthermore, the absence of helmets begs the question of when the Guyana Police Force (GPF) will finally implement their frequently uttered motto, “zero tolerance,” against these reckless riders. While I recognize that the GPF conducted several campaigns last year to address this issue, their strategies appear to have had little effect on the targeted group.
In an ideal Guyana, stricter penalties would effectively safeguard our roadways. However, we are reminded daily that our society is far from virtuous. The law outlines clear punishments for hare-brained motorists, specifically those who speed, cause death by reckless or dangerous driving, and engage in careless driving. The issue with our laws is that they are too feeble. Many of our laws require revision, especially sections 34 (speeding) and 35 (death by reckless or dangerous driving). Section 34 (2) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act states: “A first or second conviction for an offence under this section shall not render the offender liable to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence.” This is, in effect, a three-strike rule. Why would you give an offender two opportunities to break the law?
To ensure fairness, the application of this law should depend on the degree of the speed limit violation. There may be situations in which a driver is faced with a genuine emergency and exceeds the speed limit by 5 or 7 km/h; in these cases, a degree of flexibility may be warranted. However, if a driver deliberately exceeds the speed limit by 15 or 20 km/h, their licence should be suspended for two months, in addition to paying a substantial fine. The latter penalty should be applied on the second offense or conviction. Section 35 (1) states: “Any person who causes the death of another person by the driving of a motor vehicle on the road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and on conviction thereof on indictment shall be liable to imprisonment for ten years.”
I believe that while the punishment is appropriate, it should also include some form of restitution to the deceased’s family, which the court should mandate. If the offender is proven to be responsible for the death, and the deceased was the sole breadwinner for their household, the court should require the offender to take on the financial responsibilities of the deceased. A warning to errant motorcyclists: Section 22(a) of the Road Traffic Code states, “All vehicles must keep to the left or near side of the road.” If you choose to weave through traffic like a Zigzagoon and collide with another vehicle, resulting in an unfortunate spill, you will likely receive no compensation for your injuries. Additionally, you may be responsible for paying for any damages caused.
There is an unspoken consensus among Guyanese that when the phrase “Guyana Police Force” is mentioned, two words typically come to mind: corrupt and inept. Some might argue that more descriptive words could be used to characterize the GPF, and they may have a valid point. It’s unfortunate because the force’s motto, “Service and Protection,” is upheld by a dedicated group of men and women in uniform who should not be unfairly associated with its less commendable members. The chaos on our roadways can largely be attributed to ineffective leadership in our traffic department. While traffic congestion may not be the sole cause, it significantly contributes to the rise in reckless driving and road fatalities. Congestion leads to frustration from lost time and money, which, in turn, triggers anger and results in irresponsible and unsafe driving behaviours.
I enjoy listening to Mr. Paul Slowe’s podcast, “Speaking Out,” because I consider him a savant and his programme a wealth of information. I remember him praising the GPF’s traffic department for managing congestion on the East Coast highway by implementing a three-lane system. However, I knew that Uncle Paul, as I like to call him, had missed the mark with his analysis. Approximately two weeks after his commendation, he appropriately criticized the traffic chief and his team for their incompetence in handling the East Coast corridor. I share Uncle Paul’s sentiment about the GPF’s traffic department’s continuous inconsistency and miscommunication.
Every time you go out on the road, you can’t predict what to expect from them. On Monday, you may follow a specific route; by Wednesday, that route has changed, and by Friday, it’s different again. This constant flux prevents the public from establishing a settled routine. Moreover, there is limited communication from the traffic department via radio, television, or social media to inform the public about these sudden changes. The public is only notified during significant disturbances, major events, or when dignitaries or celebrities visit. This indicates that the GPF’s public relations department is as useless as a screen door on a submarine.
I am not suggesting that we disparage our men and women in uniform who are doing their best to keep our roadways safe; they are simply following the orders of their superiors. However, when you have ineffective leadership like that in the traffic department, what is inevitable is that our roads will remain unsafe for the foreseeable future.