KEY POINTS:
The Government made much ado about cracking down on people driving under the influence of illegal drugs when it issued its road-safety policy statement this week. To a degree, there was good reason for this. The introduction of roadside drug testing was bound to generate some controversy. But
that was only part of the Government's intent. Concentrating on that aspect of the package deflected attention from the dearth of other initiatives.
A year ago, a police briefing to the incoming Government said strict new controls were the only way to meet the national road-safety plan target of reducing the annual road toll to 300 deaths by 2010. The police recommended reduced speed limits and breath and blood-alcohol limits, demerit points for all speeding motorists, and an improved ability to tackle drug-impaired driving.
What is the Government proposing? The drug testing aside, there is a no-tolerance policy towards anyone travelling more than 54km/h near schools, the introduction of demerit points for intersection and seatbelt offences and those caught by red-light cameras, and a system of diminishing demerit points to target repeat and serious offenders.
There is also much talk about education being the key to reducing the road toll. "Educating people to take responsibility for their actions is critical," said Traffic Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven. "Enforcement measures are a reactive remedy and certainly have their place, but we must take a more proactive approach by putting in place an education programme that prevents crashes and breaches of the law."
Obviously, a change of driver mindset will be required if there is to be a continuing reduction in the road death toll. Increasing awareness, knowledge and understanding of the risks on the road will encourage greater responsibility. Thus, a proposal to place greater emphasis on more extensive training of young drivers is especially welcome. But enforcement must play an equal part - a far greater role than a risk-averse Government seems prepared to contemplate. It appears to place out of bounds any measure that may prove unpopular, no matter its merit, the safety benefit, or the level of support from the likes of the Automobile Association.
A letter to the editor from Mr Duynhoven on this page shows that some in the Cabinet appreciate the feebleness of the Government's approach. "If it were solely up to me, handheld cellphones would be banned immediately," he says. But this sensible approach has not won majority support, and a ban is absent from the statement.
Other of the proposals have been too long coming. A law making it an offence to drive while impaired by illegal drugs featured in a Government road safety plan in 2003. The wider use of demerit points, a better deterrent than fines, has also been an obvious step for many years. There can be little conviction, however, in the plan to use the points system for drivers caught running red lights. Speed cameras have illustrated the difficulty of identifying the driver of an offending vehicle; red-light cameras are surely no different.
The policy statement says less about what is proposed than about what is not being done. Many of the suggestions on the police wishlist would cause any politician to pause and ponder the ballot-box consequences. But a Ministry of Transport briefing delivered at the same time as those recommendations also said the road toll target of 300 would not be achieved unless the Road Safety to 2010 strategy was fully implemented. Tremulous politicking means only desultory steps are being taken to meet that objective. There is not even the conviction necessary to tackle cellphones. Road users will pay the consequences.
