The costs related to everyday transport are much too high. The public is forced to spend a large portion of their income on transport and in many cases that leaves very little to live on. For that reason, South Africa needs an integrated transport system that is safe.
The government bears the responsibility to implement proper, affordable transport infrastructure. For that there are two prerequisites:
1. The decision to implement infrastructure must be rational – or absolutely necessary.
2. The public must approve of the decision and it must be carried out lawfully.
At present, there are three projects of the Department of Transport that have very little public support and another two that are not really necessary.
The first is the e-toll system in Gauteng. It is unnecessary and has no support. It has become clear that this system should never have been implemented in the first place. The upgrades to the highway could have been paid for by saving on the state’s annual irregular expenditure, which has, according to the Auditor-General (AG), increased to more than R60 billion per year.
The fact that more than 70% of users were not willing to recognise nor pay e-toll confirms the unlawfulness of the system.
SANRAL is currently entangled in litigation with numerous road users. Defending an unlawful system is a waste of money. So many legal mistakes were made when the system was implemented that SANRAL’s chances of defending it successfully are very slim.
For example, thus far no standards have been set for the e-toll instruments and the system also does not comply with the Legal Metrology Act. The accuracy of the accounts that have been issued since the system was implemented cannot be guaranteed. The government would do well to abolish the entire system as soon as possible, before it explodes in the government’s face – just like the Transnet Pensioners scandal.
Another system that failed miserably is AARTO. It was a good idea, but it failed in its pilot phase in Gauteng. Road accidents and related deaths did not decrease during this pilot period. Therefore, the system is not ready to be implemented countrywide.
The various problems with AARTO were highlighted during two court cases. In the case of Fines4U against the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA), it was found that the officials of RTIA are biased as they do not accept representations based on procedure.
In Fines4U v JMPD, it was found that the local government’s policing unit has taken over the powers and duties of RTIA. This is probably because RTIA itself was not empowered to perform its duties. AARTO must first achieve success in its pilot phase before countrywide implementation can be considered. The alternative is to go back to the previous criminal procedure system.
Another accident waiting to happen is the Road Accident Fund (RAF). The proposed Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) will seriously limit the medical and financial aid that claimants need.
The current system is not failing because it is inherently flawed, but because it does not accommodate the agenda of certain people in the fund. RABS could possibly bring about savings for the fund, but it will be at the cost of claimants. The most important problems in this regard are:
• It will restrict the funds made available to someone who needs lifelong care.
• The public health care system will not be able to provide patients with the necessary care and rehabilitation because of the poor service delivery in the public health care system.
These issues need urgent attention and the government will have to address them in order to prevent future problems and needless expenditures.
Contact numbers: 082 391 3117 / 065 801 7216