Article: Road users failed SA: RTMC

[2026]

Well then lets just ban driving, make owning cars illegal and there will be no more road deaths and you can all say how wonderful our government is for preventing road deaths. There comes a point where you have to hold people responsible for their actions. How often does someone get into a car drunk, while his friends watch him do it and don't ostracise him in any way, the bar where he/she just spent their money getting drunk watches them drive off, doing nothing. It's not government education that will change peoples behaviour, it's being humiliated and ostracised by ones friends and community that will change behaviour. People and communities need to stand up and take responsibility and stop expecting the government to control our lives and decisions and dictate our choices. If you run a pub take away a drunkards car keys, like that will ever happen - oh no, it's not our responsibility, it's the governments.

Stop being so extreme, you're almost as bad as mike over there (I can't even take his posts half seriously anymore)

They say prevention is better than cure. You can change that a bit here. There is a line of reasonable and unreasonable actions to everyone's own opinions.

For example, putting yield markings, and school signs near a school crossing is very reasonable, gives the driver clear indication to be alert to reckless running children. Helpful, reasonable ask in my opinion (and if it's a blind corner, a reduction in speed as well).

This is not the government trying to control your life.

Putting a road block on the busiest day of the year on a single lane road - less reasonable way to help people ensure some safety.

Putting a GPS in your car and tracking bad driving (as suggested elsewhere) - very effective, but very unreasonable.

Personally, there are some very reasonable things done, and some silly things (looking at that 60KM zone thing appears silly for now, there is a reason for it (greed?), but is it "reasonable"?)

 

[Sherbang]

That's theft. Yep, great example, prevent one crime by committing another. Why not employ police to cover the exit routes of all major drinking hotspots? Maybe it's just easier to blame it on speeding and put them behind speed cameras instead.

That's not theft, it's preventing a crime - the person will get their keys back when they sober up. If someone has a gun and is going out to shoot someone innocent and you are able to take the gun away from them, would you? Would you say, oh no, that's theft, not my responsibility, let the government deal with it. Or would you take the gun away from the person thus preventing an innocent being murdered?

You want to employ police at every exit route of every drinking hotspot (people drink at home too, by the way) at all times of the day and night? Just how many police do you think there are, and that they have nothing better to do than be nannies to grown up children who can't take responsibility for themselves or their friends. Maybe every citizen should get a personal policeman to hold their hand through life to ensure they never make any choices of their own...

 

[Drunkard #1]

You can see the sign, as a non-durbanite visiting, I would follow the sign and not really expect others to be pissed off at my obeying the law.

If you don't expect people to be pissed off at having to travel at 40km/h on a highway, then you haven't really thought about it, have you? I'm not going to apologise for having somewhere to be or something to do, but having to travel at a snails pace on safe roads, just to generate money for a town *cough*'maritzburg*cough* that has no marketable assets apart from a stretch of national highway that they didn't build and don't improve or maintain.

I also don't have much sympathy for morons who can't think faster than 60km/h, but insist on using highways - if I have to slow down because you can't keep up with the pace of the modern world, you're going to piss me off.

 

[Sherbang]

You'll go to any lengths to get the cANCer off the hook for anything, won't you?

I agree though, that community SHOULD stand up... but they don't and that is the reality of the situation. You and I do not have the power to enforce the law. For that, we pay tax to an elected government. IT'S THEIR JOB to step in where we can't. If the government's job is NOT to control criminal behaviour, I ask again why we have a police force and NPA?

This has nothing to do with protecting the ANC - seems you'll go any length to blame the ANC for anything and everything. Ooh I got drunk and crashed my car - damn you ANC. ooh, I tripped and sprained my ankle, dam you ANC, ffs grow a pair.
We pay tax to a government so they can protect and provide, not control and dictate. Of course I think people breaking the law must be prosecuted, obviously, but it's not the governments job to take responsibility for my actions and my decisions and choices - that's my responsibility.

 

[Sinbad]

That's not theft, it's preventing a crime - the person will get their keys back when they sober up. If someone has a gun and is going out to shoot someone innocent and you are able to take the gun away from them, would you? Would you say, oh no, that's theft, not my responsibility, let the government deal with it. Or would you take the gun away from the person thus preventing an innocent being murdered?

You want to employ police at every exit route of every drinking hotspot (people drink at home too, by the way) at all times of the day and night? Just how many police do you think there are, and that they have nothing better to do than be nannies to grown up children who can't take responsibility for themselves or their friends. Maybe every citizen should get a personal policeman to hold their hand through life to ensure they never make any choices of their own...

People should police themselves. They don't. People should be responsible. They aren't.
Yes, they are ultimately responsible for their behaviour, BUT THE GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING US FROM THEM.

We pay tax to a government so they can protect and provide, not control and dictate.

AMEN. LET THE USELESS ****ERS START PROTECTING. Saying "oo oo be responsible, don't do this, don't do that" is NOT protecting. Laws NEED ENFORCING because of people's nature. You may be a shining light of morality, but you are in a minority.

Enforcement IS the government's responsibility. When someone GETS AWAY with making a BAD CHOICE and committing a crime, the government is failing in their RESPONSIBILITY to enforce the law.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Stop being so extreme, you're almost as bad as mike over there (I can't even take his posts half seriously anymore)

Thanks, I think. Although it's a bit rich coming from you :erm:

That's not theft, it's preventing a crime - the person will get their keys back when they sober up. If someone has a gun and is going out to shoot someone innocent and you are able to take the gun away from them, would you? Would you say, oh no, that's theft, not my responsibility, let the government deal with it. Or would you take the gun away from the person thus preventing an innocent being murdered?

You want to employ police at every exit route of every drinking hotspot (people drink at home too, by the way) at all times of the day and night? Just how many police do you think there are, and that they have nothing better to do than be nannies to grown up children who can't take responsibility for themselves or their friends. Maybe every citizen should get a personal policeman to hold their hand through life to ensure they never make any choices of their own...

No, it's stupid. The guy who is responsible for inebriating someone, should now be responsible for taking their keys away? Must he now go searching through everyone's pockets to see if they drove there? No thanks, I pay tax to have to the law enforced, not for some arb person to stick their hands in my pockets.

Highway off- and on-ramps should suffice. As well as the exit routes from most 'party' districts.

 

[Sherbang]

Stop being so extreme, you're almost as bad as mike over there (I can't even take his posts half seriously anymore)

They say prevention is better than cure. You can change that a bit here. There is a line of reasonable and unreasonable actions to everyone's own opinions.

For example, putting yield markings, and school signs near a school crossing is very reasonable, gives the driver clear indication to be alert to reckless running children. Helpful, reasonable ask in my opinion (and if it's a blind corner, a reduction in speed as well).

This is not the government trying to control your life.

I agree, putting yield markings, and school signs near a school crossing is very reasonable, gives the driver clear indication to be alert to reckless running children. And if a driver ignores the yield markings, speeds through the school crossing and kills a child, do you blame the government or the driver of the car?

 

[2026]

If you don't expect people to be pissed off at having to travel at 40km/h on a highway, then you haven't really thought about it, have you? I'm not going to apologise for having somewhere to be or something to do, but having to travel at a snails pace on safe roads, just to generate money for a town *cough*'maritzburg*cough* that has no marketable assets apart from a stretch of national highway that they didn't build and don't improve or maintain.

I also don't have much sympathy for morons who can't think faster than 60km/h, but insist on using highways - if I have to slow down because you can't keep up with the pace of the modern world, you're going to piss me off.

A sign says 60KM/h, and a visitor to your city goes 60KM/h on that road... and you're pissed at him. Well, it's clear who has the problem here.

 

[Sinbad]

I agree, putting yield markings, and school signs near a school crossing is very reasonable, gives the driver clear indication to be alert to reckless running children. And if a driver ignores the yield markings, speeds through the school crossing and kills a child, do you blame the government or the driver of the car?

I blame the government FOR LETTING HIM GET AWAY if he gets away with it.

You can't seem to differentiate between the act, and the responsibility for punishment for the act. Or perhaps you advocate vigilante justice?

 

[2026]

I agree, putting yield markings, and school signs near a school crossing is very reasonable, gives the driver clear indication to be alert to reckless running children. And if a driver ignores the yield markings, speeds through the school crossing and kills a child, do you blame the government or the driver of the car?

The driver of course. But it's still the governments responsibility to ensure those markings and rules of the road are clear and are in place.

 

[ToxicBunny]

A sign says 60KM/h, and a visitor to your city goes 60KM/h on that road... and you're pissed at him. Well, it's clear who has the problem here.

I would have been pissed at the visitor as well.... I often drive up that hill and would start accelerating to 100 just at the top, and everyone else does the same thing. What do you think would happen now if you throw one car into that mix that is breaking to 60?

 

[2026]

I would have been pissed at the visitor as well.... I often drive up that hill and would start accelerating to 100 just at the top, and everyone else does the same thing. What do you think would happen now if you throw one car into that mix that is breaking to 60?

Don't be pissed at the driver, be pissed that the one who decided to change it to a 60 zone. That drive is innocent in all this.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

I agree, putting yield markings, and school signs near a school crossing is very reasonable, gives the driver clear indication to be alert to reckless running children. And if a driver ignores the yield markings, speeds through the school crossing and kills a child, do you blame the government or the driver of the car?

Both, the driver for being an idiot and the government for not enforcing the law.

I think we're having two separate discussions here. You seem to be advocating a self-governing state. That would work in an ideal world, but this is not it. You can't rely on the goodwill of others, especially in SA. That goodwill only comes about after a complete change of mentality, which is achieved by effective government (and there are plenty of case studies to support this), and we're not at that point yet. It's odd how the first world doesn't seem to suffer from these problems as much as we do.

 

[Sinbad]

I would have been pissed at the visitor as well.... I often drive up that hill and would start accelerating to 100 just at the top, and everyone else does the same thing. What do you think would happen now if you throw one car into that mix that is breaking to 60?

Erm.
I would hope that people would be alert enough that they wouldn't have any problem with this at all.

If they aren't, they should not be driving.

 

[Sinbad]

Both, the driver for being an idiot and the government for not enforcing the law.

I think we're having two separate discussions here. You seem to be advocating a self-governing state. That would work in an ideal world, but this is not it. You can't rely on the goodwill of others, especially in SA. That goodwill only comes about after a complete change of mentality, which is achieved by effective government (and there are plenty of case studies to support this), and we're not at that point yet. It's odd how the first world doesn't seem to suffer from these problems as much as we do.

I think anyone who believes that everyone will do the right thing in the absence of any form of censure or consequence is extremely naive. You will ALWAYS have people who make selfish choices. It's human nature. And because of that, the state needs to either protect its citizens from these people, or allow the people to protect themselves (which is basically anarchy)

 

[2026]

Both, the driver for being an idiot and the government for not enforcing the law.

I think we're having two separate discussions here. You seem to be advocating a self-governing state. That would work in an ideal world, but this is not it. You can't rely on the goodwill of others, especially in SA. That goodwill only comes about after a complete change of mentality, which is achieved by effective government (and there are plenty of case studies to support this), and we're not at that point yet. It's odd how the first world doesn't seem to suffer from these problems as much as we do.

How can you enforce something that "has happened"? Unless you are refering to Sinbads "I blame the government FOR LETTING HIM GET AWAY if he gets away with it."

 

[ToxicBunny]

Erm.
I would hope that people would be alert enough that they wouldn't have any problem with this at all.

If they aren't, they should not be driving.

You would be surprised at how switched off a lot of drivers in Durban can be, I've had some very interesting driving experiences in this city because people are completely switched off. But you're also talking the main thoroughfare into and out of a very large area with a large population. The traffic is near as damnit bumper to bumper whilst still traveling at the speed limit at many times during the day on that stretch of the road.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

How can you enforce something that "has happened"? Unless you are refering to Sinbads "I blame the government FOR LETTING HIM GET AWAY if he gets away with it."

You obviously can't have somebody monitoring everything, everywhere. But you can make a culpable homicide case stick, instead of letting them get away with these ridiculous suspended sentences.

 

[2026]

You obviously can't have somebody monitoring everything, everywhere. But you can make a culpable homicide case stick, instead of letting them get away with these ridiculous suspended sentences.

Agreed

 

[Sinbad]

You obviously can't have somebody monitoring everything, everywhere. But you can make a culpable homicide case stick, instead of letting them get away with these ridiculous suspended sentences.

You can also make minor traffic offenses hurt enough so people get in the habit of obeying the law.