Guyana Electrical Consultants & Associates

In the context of the current crime rate, most citizens feel that disease aside, if they were to meet an untimely end it would probably be at the hands of armed bandits. They would be wrong. As our story today on page 3 shows, an inhabitant of the coastal belt is more likely to be killed on the country’s roads than shot by gunmen, or murdered by anyone else for that matter. In 2005, when over 120 people were murdered, 182 lost their lives in traffic accidents. It is an astonishing statistic. 

According to our report, Traffic Chief Roland Alleyne gave the leading reasons for the fatal accidents as being speeding and dark roads. With reference to the latter it should be noted that just under half of the accidents occurred at night, although whether in every case darkness was the only causal factor involved is not something which is revealed in the figures. It would be interesting to know, for example, whether in some instances where there was poor visibility, drivers were going faster than the conditions warranted, and might have avoided a collision had they only been proceeding more slowly.

As it is, it doesn’t take the Traffic Chief to tell us that speeding is a major cause of accidents; even the proverbial green man from Mars could observe that for himself after standing for a few minutes on the East Coast highway - which, incidentally, the figures show is the most dangerous road in Guyana. However, here again one would like to get a breakdown of statistics which could tell us whether there were other contributory factors apart from speeding per se which may have helped transform an otherwise average driver into a reckless one.

The first thing which comes to mind of course, is alcohol. Just how many accidents of all kinds (not just those ending in fatalities), which are said to have been caused by speeding involved drunk drivers? Presumably if a driver survives an accident with no serious injuries but is obviously inebriated, the police will test him. But are drivers who are killed ever tested by the pathologists at police request for the presence of alcohol - and, it might be added, drugs - in their systems? The role of alcohol and drugs in our accident rate is something which we now need to put a figure on.

And there may be other secondary causes to which consideration should be given. The danger of using a cellphone while driving has been given a lot of publicity recently, although how many of our accidents involved persons who were talking on mobiles when they were behind the wheel is unknown. That, however, is a statistic which it should not be too difficult for the police to compile.

Probably more relevant to our situation than the question of cellphones is the matter of loud music. Canadian research undertaken the year before last shows clearly that loud music seriously hampers a driver’s reaction time and can cause accidents. It takes up to 20% longer to perform physical and mental tasks in such situations, the study said. There is an even greater risk apparently, if the music is not just loud but has a pounding beat; up-tempo music causes drivers to have twice the number of accidents as those listening to slower melodies. Who isn’t familiar here with the phenomenon of the throbbing mini-bus flashing past, leaving the pound of a heavy bass-line vibrating in the tropical air behind it? 

Earlier research by Britain’s RAC motoring organization had found that drivers were twice as likely to skip a red light while listening to music. However, that might be a bit of irrelevant information in our situation, where such lights have effectively become museum pieces. What might be more relevant is how many accidents (fatal and otherwise) have occurred at intersections where there once were traffic lights, and where common sense dictates there should be again.

In terms of who gets killed on the roads, pedestrians are at greatest risk, 73 of them losing their lives last year. After that come the pedal cyclists, drivers and motor-cyclists (25, 22, 20, respectively) then car passengers (16), occupants of motor lorries (11) and mini-bus passengers (6). Contrary to popular supposition, therefore, mini-buses did not head the list as being more dangerous for passengers than other vehicles. Having said that, however, mini-buses do head the list for causing more deaths than any other vehicle - although only one more than cars. The popular perception, therefore, that many mini-bus drivers operate their vehicles in a reckless and/or negligent fashion, finds support in the statistics.

It should hardly come as a surprise to anyone that those who are most exposed on the road are more at risk of being killed. The pedestrian has no form of protection, and in our case the streets and highways lack pavements making them particularly tricky to navigate, especially at night. In addition, pedestrians often seem unaware of the limitations of a vehicle (it can’t stop immediately, for example), and blithely set out at night in dark clothing which is difficult for a driver to see. Jay-walking has become a high art for some of them, and no longer do they appear to be familiar with the old golden rule: look right, look left, look right again when crossing a road. That apart, there is still such a surfeit of dangerous drivers around that even the most cautious of pedestrians is at risk.

What needs to be done about the situation is well known. Above all else we need the systematic enforcement of the traffic laws, and the relentless prosecution of offenders. Impeding that process at the moment is a combination of police lethargy and, more important, corruption. Of course, if we insist on paying police constables at a level below what can be considered a living wage, then inevitably they will be tempted by bribes. There are ancillary things as well, such as the installation of functioning traffic lights in the city, an outright ban on boom boxes in mini-buses and better lighting on certain roads - although this does not come under the purview of the police.

And of course, we need another traffic education campaign starting with the children in the schools. (Disturbingly, 21 children were killed on our roads last year.) But it should be supported with a TV ad campaign in a snappy, attractive format (cartoons, perhaps?) exhorting parents not to send young children out onto the roads unaccompanied, and explaining that they lack judgement in relation to their own safety and are mentally incapable of assessing the speed of a vehicle. The campaign should not be limited to children, of course, but cover all aspects of road safety, providing information to cyclists and pedestrians about how long it takes a vehicle to stop after it brakes, for instance, as well as messages aimed at drivers who are addicted to speed.

While education campaigns are important, in the end the primary method for ensuring discipline on our roads is, as said above, enforcement of the traffic laws without fear or favour. Until that happens, we cannot look forward to any great improvements in the accident statistics in the immediate future.