The controversy over speed limiters

THE bid by the Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) to enforce the use of speed limiters in tankers, trailers and other commercial vehicles from April 1 is generating ripples in the country. The House of Representatives rose up against the introduction of the device at a recent sitting and stopped the FRSC from going ahead with the enforcement. Yesterday, officials of the FRSC briefed the House of Representatives on the benefits of the device, and the House is now expected to come out with a definitive statement on the matter. The arguments for and against the compul­sory use of speed limiters by commercial ve­hicles in Nigeria are quite clear. The FRSC has argued that about 39 per cent of fatal road ac­cidents on Nigerian expressways are caused by over-speeding. It explained that it has become necessary to enforce the use of speed limiters which will automatically limit the speed at which commercial vehicles can travel on the expressways to the recommended maximum 90 kilometres per hour allowed for taxis and buses, and 60 kilometres for tankers and trail­ers. The road safety organisation had earlier fixed June 2015 for the enforcement of the di­rective. It has argued that the law on compul­sory use of speed limiting device has been in the FRSC Establishment Act and the National Road Traffic Regulation since 2004. It is also retained in the subsequent amendments.
FRSC Act 2007 in Section 10, Sub-section (m) charges the agency with the responsibil­ity of “determining and enforcing speed lim­its for all categories of roads and vehicles and controlling the use of speed limiting device.” Again, the National Road Traffic Regulation Part X111 Section 153 (4) on speed limits states that “A person shall not drive a vehicle on any public road which is not fitted with a speed limiter.”
The position of the FRSC is that this regu­lation empowers it to enforce the use of speed limiters in the country. It said the use of the speed limiting device became advisable as all efforts to stop over-speeding through public enlightenment, training, provision of speed limiting signs and the use of speed radar guns to determine the speed of vehicles from a dis­tance had not proved effective, thereby making direct control of vehicles a better approach.
The FRSC Corps Marshall, Mr. Boboye Oyeyemi, at rallies held last year to educate commercial/corporate motor drivers and the leaders of the motor unions on the need for them to install the device in their vehicles, had explained that the initiative was not just pro­posed by the agency but jointly arrived at with the leadership of the transport/oil sector unions and other stakeholders, to raise awareness on the need to improve road safety through re­duction of accidents caused by over-speeding.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was said to have been signed with the trans­port stakeholders to commence the enforce­ment in June 2015. The speed limiting device in question is said to be a speed limiting gover­nor which works by controlling the fuel feed to the engine, as well as mechanical and electron­ic accelerator in a vehicle to ensure that the vehicle does not exceed a particular set speed, thereby helping to reduce fuel consumption. The expectation of the agency is that the use of the device by commercial vehicles, buses and articulated vehicles such as tankers and trail­ers will reduce road accident mortality by 50 per cent, in line with its 2011-2020 roadmap and the target of the United Nations (UN) De­cade of Action on Road Safety.
However, some members of the House of Representatives, at a sitting earlier in the month described the technology as obsolete. They argued that the use of Spider device, which would allow FRSC officials to moni­tor the speed of vehicles from a distance so that they can stop and fine the erring drivers would be a better option. They were also of the view that limiting the speed of vehicles on highways could pose a security risk as they may become sitting ducks for armed robbers. The legislators also expressed reservations on the cost of the device, which was said to be about N25,000 and ordered the FRSC not to go ahead with the enforcement of its use.
The high cost of the speed limiting device which the FRSC says is widely used in many countries is, indeed, a big issue, even though the agency says it is not too much a cost for owners of tankers, trailers and other articu­lated vehicles who buy their vehicles at costs running into millions of naira. It insists that the cost is nothing compared with the lives of road users that will be saved by the use of the device.
There is no debating the fact that over-speeding is a major cause of most of the fa­tal motor accidents in the country. It is also incontrovertible that the reduction of over-speeding on the highways would be better achieved with a device which forcefully limits the speed at which vehicles can move, rather than one that just alerts FRSC officials to over-speeding by drivers. This is largely be­cause the FRSC officials cannot be at every point on the expressways to monitor drivers, and their attempts to stop speeding drivers in the past have been known to sometimes result in ghastly accidents.
Our advice is for the FRSC to find a way to make the speed limiting device available at a cost that is not prohibitive. It should be af­fordable for the intended users if the country is to enjoy its benefits. The impression should not be created that the FRSC is only interest­ed in making money from the initiative. The agency’s bid to enforce the purchase of new security number plates at the cost of about N15,000 sometime ago had generated uproar in the country and was later suspended.
In the present instance, we think the House of Representatives should soften its hard stance on the device while the FRSC finds a way to bring down its cost. Many lives will certainly be saved by any initiative that will force tankers, trailers and other commercial vehicle operators to drive within the approved speed limits on our highways. The problem of security on our highways is a challenge which the police and other security agencies should brace up and meet.