By Bhavna Mohan Protesting bus drivers, headstrong politicians, and inconvenienced public; the increase of the spot fines are the root cause of this latest chaos. Statements are being thrown back and forth through the media in direct protest to, or in support of, this change at a micro level. As with any impending issue, one must take a step back and look at the bigger picture, and the ripple effects of isolated decisions and actions that have been put into play. Sri Lanka has seen the imposition of a one-fine-fits-all mechanism for traffic violators for many decades now. The question of whether continuing with the same mechanism is advisable, albeit increases after ‘so many’ (13) years, which should not be a justification, should rely on international best practices, available infrastructure, and the predisposition of the mechanism’s effectiveness to reduce violations.   The severity of the issue ‘Managing speed’, a report released by the World Health Organisation (WHO), suggests that excessive or inappropriate speed contributes to one in three road traffic fatalities worldwide. Around 1.25 million people die every year on the world’s roads. Studies indicate that typically 40-50% of drivers go over posted speed limits. Road traffic crashes are estimated to cost countries from 3-5% of GDP and push many families into poverty. According to the data published in 2017, Road Traffic Accidents Deaths in Sri Lanka reached 3,554 or 2.80% of total deaths. The Death Rate is 16.33 per 100,000 of population, ranking Sri Lanka #98 in the world. There has been a trending increase in the number of deaths caused by road traffic accidents in Sri Lanka; 2400 in 2014 and 2700 in 2015. A look at the international landscape brings attention to several systems including one adopted by many European countries – termed the ‘Day-fine’ system – which has proven to reduce traffic violations, namely in Germany, UK and Finland.   The Day-fine The methodology of calculation comprises of two factors – the severity of the crime (e.g. no. of mph over the speed limit), and the level of income of the offender (this is calculated based on revenues derived from salary, dividends, interest, pensions, and welfare benefits, less taxes, insurance premiums, and business expenses and losses for the self-employed). The former determines the number of days the fine needs to be paid, and the latter determines the amount for each day, ultimately resulting in a specific amount to be paid for a specific number of days. The said amount is always a fraction of one day’s earnings of the offender; within a specified range. Scandinavia, Argentina, and Switzerland have also adapted this system with slight differences in methods of calculation; where some counties’ mechanism looks at past offences as well. The offender may pay the fine, or appeal. Finland, Spain, and Germany have laws that can send speeding repeat offenders to jail. Day fine systems, although successful in some countries, still pose certain limitations in terms of ease of implementation in Sri Lanka – particularly with regard to determining the violator’s income. Critics point to the day fine systems of Sweden and Finland where income tax declarations are readily accessible, admitting that without such accessibility the day fine system is impaired. Recent local conversation has revolved around the highest spot fine of Rs. 3,000 imposed on speeding, the main argument against which, as publicised, is the lack of an average bus driver’s ability to pay the relatively high fine that amounts to two days’ earnings. Trade Unionists implied last week that the fines should be lowered due to the lower income earned. On speaking with President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka U. R. De Silva on the day-fine system, he said: “We cannot decide on implementing new policies and practices as stand alone. Discussions need to be held, taking into account the need for certain infrastructure, changes to law, and fines levied, in order to come up with a viable solution. I have reached out to DIG Ajith Rohana requesting for a meeting with him to discuss said infrastructure so that we can take things forward.”   What the Sri Lankan system hopes to achieve Transport Ministry Secretary G. S. Withanage told The Morning that he did not believe such systems could be implemented in Sri Lanka, highlighting the inefficiency in which previous models had been implemented to date. “We have already introduced a system in Sri Lanka, and it would take a lot of time, effort, and red tape to make these reforms. The main intention of the current system is to change the mindset and behaviour of those on the road. I get very disheartened, as a civil officer, when I see videos of how certain buses are operated. I believe that these offenders should not be given any leeway or be treated with flexibility. They are putting other people’s lives in danger and therefore deserve to be fined heavily,” he stated. Withanage added that he believed heavier fines would dissuade drivers from committing offences, claiming that the recent hikes had already reduced violations on the roads. He then compared our system to that of similar systems in Singapore and Australia where most fines are high, requiring the violator to pay up to an entire week’s pay, in certain instances, in addition to the reduction of points from their licence. Australia, USA, Singapore, Japan, and the Middle East adapt this system of high fines and demerit points; with certain differences. Australia’s camera infested roads, high-valued fines, and demerit points system result in some very negative opinions among the general populace. The Demerit Point System for driving licences in Sri Lanka has been talked about since 2009, and almost a decade later, not implemented as yet. This system sees a set number of points assigned to a licence when issued, after which deductions are made in line with offences. Once the points have depleted, the licence will then be suspended for a period of time, or cancelled. The Department of Motor Traffic has stated that they are continually working towards implementation as all relevant approvals have been obtained. However, they are yet to finalise details pertaining to the number of points with which the licences are to be issued and the number of points to be reduced for offences, among other things. In addition, delays in installing the hardware necessary to read data off the new licenses has set the project back further. The Deputy Commissioner at the Department of Motor Vehicles Dilanthi Siriwardena said: “There isn’t a specific date by which this will be implemented as we are trying to do it as soon as possible. However, we will be implementing it within this year.” Meanwhile, regarding a day-fine system, Siriwardena was sceptical; stating that she believed that the combination of increased fines and the demerit system would work well enough to reduce traffic violations. However, the question of fair proportional fining still remained. Road Safety Council Chairman Dr. Sisira Kodhagoda, said: “Increasing the fines is one aspect of the entire control process. We are also looking at the technical side of vehicles and making recommendations to manufacturers, investigating areas where there is a high incidence of accidents and getting to the bottom of the matter to mitigate the risks.” Dr. Kodhagoda also felt that the focus should not be on levels of income but on deterring the crime altogether.   Not a very straight line Japan tends to focus highly on implementation of policies and practices that look at instilling a road safety culture into each citizen from a very young age. Consistency and dedicated practice of these have led to drastic reductions in traffic violation rates, thereby reducing accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Perhaps we, in Sri Lanka, have not considered the depth with which this should be executed. Dr. Kodhagoda added: “If a driver is purposely violating the limit, he is then paying for that violation. If he follows all the rules, then he won’t have to pay even one rupee.” While the day fine system is implemented for the purpose of imposing fines that would deter people equally despite levels of income, Dr. Kodhagoda felt that violators shouldn’t be “discriminated based on their income”, when determining fines. However, the traditional fixed fine can have a ‘vicious cycle’ effect on economically disadvantaged offenders, leading to an inability to pay the fine and ultimately imprisonment. Whereas fines in Sri Lanka may not leave drivers destitute, a Rs. 3000 fine, for example, will certainly disproportionately affect people from different financial backgrounds, effectively only deterring less-privileged drivers from violating road rules. The President of the Lanka Private Bus Owners Association Gemunu Wijeratne stated that before looking into income-based fining models, Sri Lanka should fine according to the severity of the offence. “What we propose is charging the fine in line with the offence. For instance, in a 80kmph zone, someone who is driving at 82kmph is charged Rs. 3000 and someone driving at 120kmph is also charged Rs. 3000. We propose that the fine charged should increase in line with the crime.” Interestingly, this is a similar method by which France and Spain operate, and is also one component of the day-fine system. He stated that the Government should shift its focus on to reducing the amount of three-wheelers on the road, adding that they were the root cause of the problem. Wijeratne stated that there was a direct correlation between congestion and traffic offenses, and that “banning three-wheelers” would go a long way in reducing traffic violations.   Indirect approach A closer comparison, between fixed fine (current) and day-fine systems, gives rise to more pertinent points of discussion. What needs to be looked at is whether the punishment should be felt equally across violators, which would make a case for punishment in line with income, or whether the punishment should be based solely on the violation committed and thereby treat everyone as equals. Speaking to The Morning, Senior Professor at the Department of Transport and Logistics Management, Faculty of Engineering, University of Moratuwa Prof. Amal S. Kumarage iterated his own reservations on the day-fine system, claiming that its implementation would rest on how the current law is applied and the legality with which income information is gathered. However, he said: “Increasing the fines is in no way deterring this because the problems continue. Ideally, the most prevalent way would be to tie up with insurance so that if you have a bad driving record, then your insurance premiums increase. This is a more implementable system which, unfortunately even though proposed, the insurance companies are not interested. Here, the private sector also can get involved and there is much they can do.” He also added: “We have to change the way in which buses are operated. Sri Lanka is not the only country that operates buses, but is probably the only country trying to manage a fleet of 23,000 buses in this manner of allowing each bus to pretty much be like a walk-in shop. The fine is in no way the answer. The answer would be to convert this highly disruptive, competitive system to a much more mature system, which is what we are trying to do under the Sahasara project – that is to be implemented later on this year.” The Sahasara Bus Reforms Project, piloted in Kandy, takes a look at revenue pooling settlement systems, where bus owners would become suppliers of vehicles and pool revenues, under the technical consultancy of the Department of Transport and Logistics Management, University of Moratuwa, in order to address traffic congestion, uncontrollable competition among buses, and deficiencies in regulations for monitoring buses.   What’s best for Sri Lanka? The systems used by other countries and their irrefutable results, in an international setting, demand consideration, even in the instance where local systems have been in place and are evolving. Realistically, a feasibility study on the potential effectiveness of these systems in the local traffic environment needs to be conducted instead of conclusions being drawn up on the inability to implement such systems in Sri Lanka without substantial research or evidence. If not a specific system already in place, alternative systems to mitigate the issues in the current landscape need to be looked at, as the present alternative suggestions and feeble efforts to implement them, as gathered above, are not adequate to resolve the issues in the current landscape in Sri Lanka.