Motor vehicle amendment: was someone drunk at the wheel?

On Tuesday August 4 the STAR received an email from police press relations officer Zachary Hippolyte. The subject; Amendments to the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act. It read: “The public is hereby advised of the following amendments made to the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act 2008, Section 85, Failing to Produce a Driver’s Licence, Permit or other Driver’s Identification and Registration Document.

Left: Zachary Hippolyte, Police Press Relations Officer. Right: Silas Wilson, assistant to Infrastructure Minister Philip Pierre.

Left: Zachary Hippolyte, Police Press Relations Officer. Right: Silas Wilson, assistant to Infrastructure Minister Philip Pierre.

The amended Act is then stated:
“(1) On every occasion when a person drives a motor vehicle or trailer, that person shall have possession of his or her valid driver’s licence, permit or other driver’s identification document and the registration document in relation to the motor vehicle or trailer.
(2) A traffic officer may stop and request a driver to produce his or her licence, permit or other driver’s identification document, the certificate of registration or other registration document issued under this Act or the applicable law in relation to a motor vehicle or trailer being driven.
(3) Where a request is made under subsection (2), the driver to whom the request is made shall produce immediately for examination by the traffic officer –
(a) His or her driver’s licence, permit or other driver’s identification document; and
(b) The certificate of registration or other registration documents, which must include the certificate of insurance or such evidence as may be prescribed in relation to the use of the motor vehicle.”

Then the email details the penalty:
“A person who contravenes subsection (3) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both.”

Wrote the police press officer: “Therefore, please be advised that the period of 48 hours to produce documents under Section 85 is no longer applicable.”

There was instant reaction to the amendment by members of the public, many in opposition. The former national security minister also joined the debate on Monday. Guy Mayers called on citizens to protest the new regulations adding that it would further strain the relations between citizens and police.

The former minister for transport has also had his say. According to Guy Joseph, the licence office had run out of material to produce the licences so that it takes people more than a week to get their driver’s licence. “So what happens if my licence has been paid but I have not been issued the relevant documents?” asked Joseph who describes the measure as unfair.

On Tuesday Silas Wilson, executive Assistant to the Minister of Infrastructure, Port Services and Transport issued a statement on the matter in an attempt to clarify the issue.
“Over the last week, there has been much public discussion about changes to the regulations regarding the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act. The Ministry of Infrastructure, Port Services and Transport wishes to bring clarity to this matter,” the statement commenced.

“Firstly, the last amendment to the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act Cap 8.01 was done in 2006. Section 85 of this law gives a Traffic Officer the authority to request that a person driving a motor vehicle produces a driver’s licence for examination. Failure to comply could result in a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three (3) months,” it further explained.

The statement then went on to say that by publication of Statutory Instrument (SI) 46 of May 2015, violation of section 85 in the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act has been made a ticketable offence. The fine that this offence now attracts will not exceed $250.00 as opposed to the previous $1,000.00.

According to the Ministry these changes became necessary because the previous mechanism of 48 hours was being exploited and was proving to be unreliable as persons were being dishonest by not providing factual information about their identity. Further, that there have also been cases where persons who have been involved in accidents have left the island leaving the other parties at great loss and without the means to be compensated. The requirement for having identification on one’s person is primarily for ensuring that a driver can be identified at the time of an accident or subsequently traced.

The Ministry went on to say that changes to the regulations should therefore be viewed by citizens as positive attempts by the government to ensure safety on our roads for both drivers and pedestrians.

The question now is: where did the police get their information, especially about the amount of the fine, in the first instance? Also how will this new amendment curb the carnage now prevalent on our roads as well as the proliferation of drivers speeding and riders without helmets? In an era of modern technology can’t a simple police hand-held device be used to determine the validity of someone’s motor vehicle documents? Finally, why did it take the Ministry of Infrastructure an entire week to lend its voice to the debate and offer some clarity?

Share your feedback with us.

4 Responses to Motor vehicle amendment: was someone drunk at the wheel?

  1. Woodsman says:

    … continued

    3. Introduce a points system. Violators would receive driving points for certain offences leading to full suspension of a licences if a certain number of points is accumulated within a certain period.

    4. Increase the fines.

    The above scenario could easily be replaced with any number of similar examples. I hope that the amendment is reconsidered.

  2. Woodsman says:

    Unbelievable. In the age of advanced mobile and communications technology it is bewildering that such a backward measure has been implemented. Picture this scenario: A football team goes to practice and the only individual present with a vehicle sustains a serious gash above an eye which immediate needs to be treatment. Of course with blood pouring into an eye, he can’t be expected to drive. One of his team mates – a licence holder – decides to drive him to a health centre. However, that individual, felt no need to bring along his driver’s licence to the training ground. Along the way he is stopped by a police officer performing random checks. The poor lad could be fined $1000.00 AND be locked up for up to 3 months simply for dealing with an emergency.

    Before the legislation was changed couldn’t some of the following considered?
    1. Since one of the concerns was that offenders were fleeing the island within the 48 hours, why not reduce the period to 24 hours or request that drivers licences be submitted to the offender’s nearest police station (depending on the time of day) by a certain time.

    2. Ensure that all drivers’ details are enterred into a database that is instantly and remotely accessible by traffic cops. That does not have to involve sophisticated equipment. The officer at the scene can simply use a mobile phone to request the necessary information from the department and have it (a scan of the driver’s licence) forwarded to him or her.


  3. Joe says:

    This should not be impose on local people unless it’s been having a vote in parliament .that should be debated before that amount be impose.the public should have a say in that matter.i was fine on my way to the police station .the traffic law is a driver should produce within 24 hours or five days then produce at the police station.thats harsh.

  4. St Lucian says:

    Thats amendment is made by the government to make sure that they empty our pockets of everything so they can pay for the useless loans parliament have been granting Kenny.

← Go Back | bbApp | Local Back to Top ↑
THE STAR Newspaper
Magazines available in THE STAR Newspaper
2nite Magazine
Sports & Health Inc

Lifestyle & Archives