WE welcome the campaign by the Police Force to enforce new traffic regulations related to vehicles licensed to provide public transportation and to private vehicles.
As we reported yesterday, there have been mixed reactions from commuters to the drive by the police to wipe off markings and drawings on mini-buses, and stop the use of hand-held mobile phones, and using false identification plates or certificates of registration.
The use of mobile phones while driving and using false identification plates or certificates of registration applies to all vehicles and the other aspects are for those in the public transportation sector.
The renewed campaign to establish certain set standards by those who own and operate vehicles for public transport provides another opportunity to raise related issues of concern to the general public.
One is the now widespread practice by owners of private cars to operate as taxis. The law is clear – private cars and other vehicles cannot be operated for hire because the law simply does not cover people paying to use them.
Traffic Chief Neil Semple told the Government Information Agency on Monday that persons should refuse to travel in privately registered cars being used for hire because they would not be compensated by the insurance company if they are injured in an accident.
The Police Force should, however, go beyond merely advising the public. It should include the message more forcefully in its overall public education programmes and start to haul private car operators plying as taxis before the courts.
Putting offenders before the courts and letting them pay for breaking the law can do much more than appealing to people to show common sense.
The law against playing loud music in public transportation vehicles is fine but what about playing ear-shattering music, or so-called music, in private vehicles?
What logic is there in banning loud music in vehicles in the public transportation sector and allowing drivers of private vehicles to blast music as loudly as they want, where and when they want?
Something just does not make much sense here.
And then there is the issue about tints on vehicles.
Some light tints on windows and windscreens of vehicles can help reduce the glare of the sun from affecting those inside, but dark tints are being allowed almost without reason.
Most citizens would understand the security reasons behind heavy tints for vehicles for high state officials, including the President, Prime Minister, top law enforcement officials and a few others.
But who is allowing almost everybody to use dark tints on their vehicles as they please?
Other road users should be able to recognize persons in vehicles, especially drivers, for obvious reasons, particularly in the event of accidents and the commission of crimes.
Allowing the use of heavy tints on vehicles without discrimination seems extremely short-sighted and is an issue that the authorities should revisit with alacrity.
