The PPP/C Government has been in Office for 22 years now, and during this period, there has been an undeniable economic transformation in Guyana.

The manifestation of this ‘boom’ in the economy can be seen wherever one visits throughout the ten administrative regions.

The development strategy has been led by the building of critical social infrastructure that had become disintegrated, if not non-existent, by that watershed year of 1992.

Also, there has been the highly commendable strategy of incentives and enabling procedures that laid the groundwork for massive private sector investment, and also foreign direct investment.

Couple these two growth and development foundations with the astute management of the country’s fiscal affairs,  and  one will understand why Guyana is so often commended  by the  international donor communities, in addition to the regional Caribbean Development Bank (CDB). Of great importance is  the fact that the development initiatives have been people-centered,  with the net result  being that tens  of thousands of low income Guyanese are now proud home owners, an  achievement made possible by a  government-piloted divestment land policy, and very low  mortgage interest payment made possible through tax rebates to the commercial banking houses. Because of more disposable income, many of our working class compatriots are owners of modern household utilities and other comforts of life. As is so well known, acquisitions of this nature were once the socio-economic preserve   of the well-to-do.
A significant, but common signpost of this improved standard of living is the proliferation of vehicle ownership enjoyed by every class of Guyanese, again changing the once traditional berth of only upper class privilege. However, it is this particular aspect of newly acquired economic means that we wish to highlight.
It is not uncommon for many young people to be seen driving very expensive vehicles. Many of these are either personally owned or family shared, or even given to young family members. It is the responsibility towards the usage of these vehicles that is in question. On observation, most of these young drivers have the incorrect understanding of what it means to either own/drive a vehicle, since they are often drunk and seen using the roadways recklessly. This results in crashes that have claimed the lives of these very drivers,  reported as drunk, and driving without due care.
Often, innocent lives are lost in this road carnage, like those of the Bagot sisters, Latoya 19, Juanita 16 and their 3-year-old neice, Shemaine Cort, who all died on the Corentyne Highway last  Wednesday evening  because of a young driver whose swath of driving destruction began with the striking  down of a motor cyclist. Not only did he  flee the scene, but by doing so, in the process, slammed into the Bagot sisters and their young neice, thus depriving their  recently migrated mother and grandmother, the  opportunity of ever seeing her daughters and granddaughter again.
Surely this is the classical case of the reckless young driver, totally drunk; it brings into question the role of, particularly, parents who allow their children uses of the family vehicle. It also highlights the definite problem of alcohol abuse and drunkenness among young teens.
There is a moral responsibility for parents, and even other senior adult family members, with regard to the suitability of their offspring and relatives for vehicular ownership, driving and road usage. Are most of our young sons, who have been mainly culpable in these road tragedies, deserving of such privileges? Are most parents immersed in, and guided by, emotional sentiments when according their children such elevation, against their better sense of judgment, and even advice? Why must parents place/bequeath a vehicle in the care of their young when they are fully aware of the possibilities for endangerment to life? And is it fair to road users, to be imminently threatened by this gross irresponsibility?
This category of parent can only be guilty as their offspring for bringing grief to families. What must be understood is that life is sacred and always preferred. But there are those road users who believe that after committing their reckless and irresponsible act, that offering compensation, a means of escaping judicial judgment for them, will suffice. These sums, often a mere pittance, are given without any consideration of the economic worth or value of the deceased to the family that suffered the loss, although we   hold to   the view that there is no sufficient monetary value on any human life. Yet, it is important to state that because of adverse social circumstances, families are often left with no choice but to accept what is given to them. Accounts are legion as to the numerous homes that descend to great suffering and deprivation because of the death by accident of who is often the only breadwinner.
Questions have been perennial, surrounding the acquisition of some drivers’ licenses, due to the holder’s destructive use of the road. The reality is that drunk driving has certainly become a death threat to  other road users, claiming also the lives of the errant drivers; these  and other recalcitrants  must demand greater action from the Police Traffic Department.
This editorial is unconditional in its position that  consideration be given to increased judicial measures being  taken against this reckless and destructive category, that  those  charged and found guilty for  causing death by dangerous driving be accorded  condigned custodial sentences especially in cases of multiple deaths.
In instances where no deaths have occurred but drunkenness can be proven as the cause of an accident, a sentence of no less than five years should be handed down.
Finally, there is a truism that must be emphasised – that there is greater affluence throughout our country. Never before have so many benefitted from the socio-economic development process and its bountiful success. But this should mean an appreciation for all the hard work and care of material possessions derived. This is a moral lesson that parents should at all times bring to the attention of their young; for, there is enough evidence that points in the direction of many young persons, perhaps misunderstanding what material improvement of their household means. They emit a reckless conduct that continues to cause bereavement to families, and concomitant stress to their own households.