JaRistotle’s Jottings | Laws, responsibility and enforcement

So, the new Road Traffic Act was passed in Parliament, taxi operators protested against certain provisions, and the Senate, behaving like eunuchs in protecting vote-dom rather than country-dom, postponed rather than address the matter. Not surprising really, but what I found interesting was the basis of the protests by the taxi operators.

The act speaks to the owners of taxis being held liable for traffic violations committed by the drivers they employ to operate their vehicles. And why not?

As the beneficial owners of taxis which are operated in the public domain and by way of vicarious liability, they are ultimately responsible as and when third parties are injured or killed as a result of negligence on the part of their employed drivers, failure to maintain the roadworthiness of their vehicles or the illicit operations of their vehicles. In similar vein, they should be responsible for liabilities to the State as and when incurred by their drivers and their vehicles. Argument done.

What they are seeking to do is evade that responsibility and find a veil to hide behind, such a veil being an invitation to engage in Anansi-ism under the facade of 'it wasn't me'. I am willing to bet that these taxi owners would not hire irresponsible drivers to be chauffeurs to themselves or members of their family, so why not take the same position with respect to members of the general public? If taxi owners are prepared to conduct their operations within the prescriptions of the law, then there is no problem.

Culture of evasion

Such evasion of responsibility is not confined to taxi owners. Fisherfolk recently played a similar card in response to proposed provisions in the revised Fisheries Act, citing the costly fines for fishing without a licence. Again, I say, comply with the law and avoid problems. But no, rascals want to be able to do as they please while others pay the price for their indiscretions. Such rascals factor the cost of non-compliance into their illicit business operations, and this is what underpins the taxi owners' protests: non-compliance is now too costly.

Enforcement

There is no value in watering down the provisions of new legislation on the basis of protests from intended lawbreakers who want to minimise their liability to the State when caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Similarly, there is little point in implementing new laws when those who are empowered to enforce those laws are themselves major violators and pitiful enforcers of existing laws.

I pray that none of our political representatives capitulate to the ill-intentioned protesters as that will confirm the supremacy of vote-dom and send a slap-in-the-face message to the public.

The police are already notoriously poor at enforcing existing laws, and I have little hope that much will change with the passage of the aforementioned pieces of legislation. In fact, I am sometimes amazed at the absolute disregard the police have for infractions committed under dem nose.

For instance, there is a new trend of unfettered driving of vehicles devoid of licence plates and presumably without insurance coverage under the guise of delivery from the wharves, while the police seem to be deaf, dumb and blind. Yow, it's not just major crimes that have major implications: multiple small infractions collectively have major implications.

No one is exempt from being a victim of indiscipline and unlawful behaviour, but we can minimise such prospects by preventing the veil of Anansi from overshadowing us: ensure that business operators and beneficial owners cannot shun responsibility for illicit activities by their employees or within their enterprises. Dem must man-up.

Send feedback to columns@ gleanerjm.com.