The Sri Lanka Police’s decision to begin spot drug testing of public bus drivers is a welcome and long-overdue step. For years, passengers have relied on little more than luck when stepping onto buses that travel at high speeds, often overcrowded, on some of the country’s most dangerous roads. The early results of the tests, which revealed a troubling number of drivers under the influence of narcotics while on duty, only confirm what many commuters have suspected for a long time.
What is equally revealing, however, is what happened next. Reports that some drivers failed to turn up for work the following day suggest that fear of detection spread quickly through the system. This reaction alone underlines why the initiative matters. It exposed a problem that was previously hidden and demonstrated that enforcement, even when limited, can change behaviour.
Yet, this is also where the challenge lies. Spot checks, no matter how well publicised or aggressively conducted, are not a sustainable solution on their own. International experience shows that lasting improvements in road safety come not from occasional crackdowns, but from routine, predictable systems that treat sobriety as a basic professional requirement.
In countries such as the UK, the US, Japan and Australia, drug and alcohol testing of bus drivers is not framed as a punishment or a special operation. It is embedded in employment. Drivers are tested before being hired, randomly during service, after accidents, and when there is reasonable suspicion. In Japan, daily alcohol checks before and after shifts are mandatory and electronically recorded. In the US, drivers are part of a continuous national testing pool with clear consequences for violations.
However, the key difference here is culture. In those systems, testing is normalised. Drivers expect it. Employers are responsible for enforcing it. Regulators audit compliance. The result is not just detection, but deterrence. When drivers know that testing is routine and unavoidable, the incentive to take drugs before duty diminishes sharply.
Sri Lanka’s current approach relies heavily on Police intervention. While this has an important role, it cannot be the sole pillar of enforcement. Public transport safety should not depend on whether a mobile testing unit happens to be parked at a terminal on a given morning. Nor should it rely on dramatic operations that briefly capture headlines and then fade from view.
There is also a risk that sporadic crackdowns encourage evasion rather than reform. If drivers believe testing is rare or predictable, they will adapt their behaviour to avoid it. The reported absences from work following the initial tests suggest that this dynamic is already at play.
A more effective system would place clear responsibility on bus operators. Employers should be required to conduct regular pre-duty checks, maintain records, and ensure that drivers who test positive are removed from service immediately. Regulatory bodies must have the authority to audit these practices and impose penalties on operators who fail to comply.
Equally important is the deterrent effect of consistency. When rules are enforced evenly and continuously, they reshape expectations. Drivers begin to see sobriety not as a choice, but as a condition of employment. Over time, this reduces violations without the need for constant punitive action. What is important in the long-term is that there is a broader public interest at stake. Public buses carry schoolchildren, workers, elderly passengers and tourists. A single impaired driver can cause irreversible harm, not only to passengers but to pedestrians and other road users. The cost of prevention is small compared to the cost of accidents, both in human lives and public trust. If the public transport system improves, becomes safer and more efficient, more people will use it, and there will be less congestion, less expenditure on fuel and less pollution. The recent initiative should therefore be seen as a starting point, not an endpoint. It has brought visibility to a problem that can no longer be ignored.
On the other hand, clear regulations and routine testing can restore dignity to bus driving by reinforcing it as a trusted public service rather than casual labour. When drivers are held to professional standards, public perception shifts, recognising them as skilled individuals responsible for human lives. This not only builds respect from passengers but also gives drivers greater pride in their work, strengthening the status of the profession itself.
Therefore, if Sri Lanka is serious about road safety, drug testing of bus drivers must become routine, employer-driven, and legally embedded. When testing is predictable, unavoidable and fair, it does more than catch offenders. It deters them. And in a country where public transport remains a daily necessity for millions, that deterrence could save lives long before sirens ever sound.