PENALIZATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS IN THE MAGISTERIAL ...

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTTHE RESEARCHER GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGES THE AUTOMOBILEASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA FOR A RESEARCH GRANT TO THE AMOUNTOF R3750-00.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIn acknowledging the help I have received in the carrying outof this research I would mention a special indebtedness to mysupervisor, Prof P J Potgieter, Head of the Department ofCriminal Justice, University of Zululand, for his inspiration,painstaking guidance and wisdom upon which I gladly drew andwithout which this research could not have been accomplished.The financial assistance I received from the AutomobileAssociation of South Africa towards the cost of this researchis hereby acknowledged. Likewise, the Research andPublications Committee, University of Zululand, is alsothanked.For making possible the operational part of the research Igrateful to Mr S J Verwey, the Chief Magistrate for thedistrict of Lower Umfolozi, for granting me permission toperuse court records. I am also indebted to the variousofficials attached to the Empangeni magistrate's court.Without their kind help, this research would not have been asuccess.amI would also like to acknowledge the kindness of Mr CPretorius, station Commander of the Natal ProvincialAdministration based at Empangeni, Mr H C Keet, Assistantsuperintendent, Administration (Richards Bay trafficdepartment) and Hr N J Grobler, Assistant Chief ProtectiveServices Officer (Empangeni Municipality Protective servicesDepartment) for extensive talks and discussions held with themon the subject of traffic law enforcement on which they hadtremendous experience.(i)

I am also indebted to Prof P T Sibaya, Miss G Marticingh andMessrs A T Mthembu, L P Mqadi and S S Xulu for all thecomputing services.I thank Miss R S Biyela of the law section, University ofZululand Library and other library staff for assisting insecuring inter-library loans where possible and in locatingother relevant research material.It behoves meThomas whodissertation.to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to Mrs J Cshared the tedious hours of typing thisI wish indeed to thank my mother who toiled to make me what Iam today. To her I offer the best recompense of a memorywritten in black and white.The penultimate debt of gratitude goes to my wife,Nomthandazo, and son Sinethemba for the patience, loyalty andencouragement shown all the time even when I was toopreoccupied to attend to family matters. This supportenabled me to endure hardships of research.Finally, my humble gratitude goes to the Almighty God, who hasgiven me love, strength and health so abundantly to pursuethis research to its finality.(ii)

DECLARATIONIhereby declare that the dissertation "Penalization ofTraffic Offenders in the Magisterial District of LowerUmfolozi" represents my own work both in conception andexecution. All the sources that I have used or quoted havebeen acknowledged by means of complete references.V IKHOZA(Hi)

DEDICATIONTo my ~ate mother, Phi~isiwe, for her profound faith ineducation despite great odds.(iv)

TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGEACKNOWLEDGEMENTSDECLARATIONDEDICATIONLIST OF TABLESLIST OF FIGURESLIST OF ANNEXURESSUMMARYOPSOMMING(i)(iii)(iv)(xiv)(xxi)(xxiv)(xxv)(xxviii)(v)

CHAPTER 1~'l-GENERALORIENTATION1.11.21.31.41.51.5.11.5.21.5.31.5.41.5.51.61.6.11.6.21.6.31.6.41.6.51.6.61.6.71.6.81.6.91. 6 .101.71.7.11.7.21.81.91.10INTRODUCTIONRESEARCH: RATIONALEAIMS OF THE RESEARCHRESEARCH METHODOLOGY ~DELIMITATION OF RESEARCHQuantitative delimitationjlQualitative delimitationGeographical (spatial) delimitationChronological (temporal) delimitationConceptual delimitationDEFINITION OF CONCEPTS •• Penalization'~ Traffic offence ­Traffic offender·TrafficDriverMotor vehiclePublic roadFreewayTraffic officer"Traffic law enforcement·REVIEW (SURVEY) OF LITERATURESouth African literatureOVerseas literaturePROBLEMS (OBSTACLES) ENCOUNTERED DURING THERESEAR;VCHAPTER DIVISIONSUMMARY123311121213141414;~15161717181818191919202024262728(vi)

CHAPTER 2ROAD TRAFFIC LEGISLATION IN SOUTH AFRICA2.12.22.2.1-~2.2.22.32.3.1- 2.3.22.3.32.3.4~2.3.52.3.62.3.72.42.4.12.4.1..12.4.1..22.4.1..32.4.1..42.4.1..5/'2.4.1..62.4.22.4.2.12.4.32.4.3.1INTRODUCTIONOBJECTIVES AND FUNCTIONS OF TRAFFICLEGISLATIONObjectives of traffic legislationThe function of traffic legislationPROBLEMS AFFECTING TRAFFIC LEGISLATIONvicriticisms against traffic legislationAcceptability and practicability of trafficlegislationDifferential nature of traffic legislationPublic opinion and attitudes towards trafficlegisl-ahonInaccurate and unreliable dataRisk-analysisComplex and diverse nature of trafficlegislationAPPLICATION OF TRAFFIC LEGISLATIONRoad Traffic ordinance No. 21 of 1966Administrative arrangementsLicensing of drivers of motor vehiclesVehicle fitness and related permitsPrescription and displaying of road trafficsignsDriver behaviour on public roadsPenalizationRoad Traffic Regulations~_._--.~PenalizationRoad Traffic Act No. 29 of 1989Fitness of drivers2.4.3.1.1 Licensing2.4.3.1.2 Professional driving permit(vii)3031313334353536373939404142434445464649495051535357

2.4.3.1.3 Powers of the court2.4.3.2 Fitness of vehicles2.4.3.32.4.3.42.4.3.52.4.3.62.4.3.72.4.3.82.4.3.92.4.42.4.4.12.4.4.22.4.4.32.4.4.42.4.4.52.5Operator fitnessRoad traffic signsRules of the roadAccident and accident reportsReckless or negligent or inconsiderate drivingand driving while intoxicatedPresumptions~enalizationRoad Traffic RegulationsFitness of driversFitness of vehiclesRoad traffic signs, speed limit and parkingmetersRules of the roadPenalizationSUMMARY58585959606162636366666667676768CHAPTER 3 t-{CLASSIFICATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENCES AND TRAFFIC OFFENDERS\3.1'--3.2~.. 3.2.1 1'- 3.2.1.1~ 3.2.1.23.2.1.33.2.2 ~- 3.2.3 '>INTRODUCTIONCLASSIFICATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENCES~Driving offencesSpeedingReckless and/or negligent drivingDriving under the influence of intoxicatingliquorVehicle-related offencesDocument offencesCLASSIFICATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS(viii)7071 J~',76798080879198

3.3.~3.3.23.3.33.3.43.43.5Professional traffic offendersClassification according to behaviour andpersonal qualitiesThe unintentional, deliberate (intentional) andthe sensory or physically defective trafficoffendersThe defensive, occasional and chronic trafficoffenders-"FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS TRAFFICOFFENCESSUMMARY999999~01~02~05~CHAPTER 4TRAFFIC OFFENDERS AND TRAFFIC OFFENCES4.14.24.34.44.54.5.14.5.24.5.34.64.74.84.8.14.8.24.94.104.11INTRODUCTIONHOW THE TRAFFIC OFFENCES CAME TO BE KNOWNINCIDENCETYPES OF VEHICLES INVOLVEDDATES AND TIMES OF TRAFFIC OFFENCESMonth of traffic offence commissionDay of traffic offence commissionTime of traffic offence commissionAGE DISTRIBUTIONSEX DISTRIBUTIONRACE AND NATIONALITY OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSRacial distributionNationality distribution-OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTIONECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTIONSUMMARY106106HO1.1.7120120~271341.411.49156156164167175~85(ix)

CHAPTER 5TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT5.1 INTRODUCTION5.2 ~ OBJECTIVES OF TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT5. 3 ~ NATURE OF TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT5.3.1 Structural traffic control5.3.2 ~. Functional components of traffic control5.3.2.1-="proac~ivetraffic law enforcement5.3.2.2 ~~Reactive traffic law enforcement5.3.2.3 .....-Remote functional enforcement5.45.4.15.4.2~ TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONSNatal Provincial AdministrationTraffic organizations of Empangeni andRichards Bay local authorities5.55.5.1~ TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIESAdministrative functions5.5.25.5.35.5.4'.-. Executive functionsSupervisory functionsSurveillance activities5.5.55.65.6.15.6.1.1-- Regulative activitiesSELECTIVE TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENTDiscretionDiscretion and the law5.6.1.25.6.1.35.6.1.45.6.25.6.2.15.6.2.25.75.8The victim's discretionInstitutional discretionLine discretionToleranceOffence toleranceEnforcement tolerancePROBLEMS SURROUNDING TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT~SUMMARY187188189190191192193194194195197203203203204205207209210211211212212213213214214217(x)

CHAPTER 6PENALIZATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS6.16.26.36.3.16.3.2--~-6.3.36.3.46.46.4.16.4.1.16.4.1.26.4.26.4.2.16.4.2.26.4.2.36.4.2.46.4.2.56.4.2.66.4.2.76.4.2.86.56.5.16.5.26.5.2.16.5.2.26.5.2.36.5.2.41,6.5.2.56.5.3INTRODUCTIONTHE MEANING OF "PENALIZATION"PENALIZATION: RATIONALERetributionIncapacitationDeterrenceCorrection~THE TRAFFIC OFFICER IN COURTThe traffic officer as a witnessThe traffic officer as a lay or ordinarywitnessExpert testimonyPrinciples of effective testimonyTruthRealityPreparation'Answering questionsDispassionate .-Admission of ignorance and mistakesNon-verbal communication.­Preparation of traffic caSe by pUblicprosecutorPENALIZATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSDiscretion in penalization (sentencing)Nature of penalizationAdmission of guilt ....Fine ./Imprisonment ./~eriodicalimprisonmentSuspended sentenceDistribution of penalization218219221222223224225227228229230233234234235235236236237237238,~238240245248249250252254(xi)/

6.5.3.1 Distribution according to traffic offences 2546.5.3.2 Racial distribution 2586.5.3.3 Distribution according to sex 2626.5.3.4 Distribution according to age 2656.5.3.5 Occupational distribution 2696.5.3.6 Distribution according to amount paid 2736.5.3.7 Distribution according to terms ofimprisonment 2786.5.3.8 "Court ~~pearances 2806.5.4 Disparity in penalizing traffic offenders 2846.6 SUMMARY 302CHAPTER 7FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS7.17.27.2.17.2.1.17.2.1.27.2.1.37.2.27.2.2.17.2.2.27.2.2.37.2.2.47.2.37.2.47.2.4.17.2.4.27.2.4.37.2.4.4INTRODUCTIONKEY FINDINGSTraffic offencesDriving offencesVehicle-related offencesDocument offencesTraffic offenders and traffic offencesIncidenceTypes of vehicles involvedDynamics of traffic offencesDemographic variables of traffic offendersTraffic law enforcementPenalization of traffic offendersAims of the researchProblems encounteredThe traffic officer in courtRoad traffic legislation(xii)304305305305306306307307308308309312313313314314315

7.2.4.57.2.4.67.37.3.17.3.1.17.3.1.27.3.27.3.2.17.3.37.3.3.17.3.47.3.57.3.5.17.3.5.27.3.5.37.3.5.47.3.5.57.3.5.67.3.67.3.77.4Discretion in penalizationPenalization of tra~c offendersRECOMMENDATIONSDriving offencesVDriver training and educationMotor vehicle manufacturer-liabilityVehicle-related offencesPeriodic inspection of motor vehiclesDocument offencesIssuing of drivers' licencesTraffic policing and traffic engineeringPenalization of traffic offendersThe points demerit systemCorrective supervisionSurchargeEstablishment of a traffic court ­Establishment of a traffic penalizationboardProbationRecord-writingFuture researchSUMMARY316316321321321321322322322322323323323324324325325325326326326BIBLIOGRAPHY328(xiii)

LIST OF TABLESTABLEPAGE3.1FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENCESIN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF LOWERUMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30JUNE 1990753.2BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OFOF DRIVING OFFENCES IN THE MAGISTERIALDISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD01 JANUARY- 30 JUNE 1990783.3FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DRUNK TRAFFICOFFENDERS ACCORDING TO SEX IN THE MAGIS­TERIAL DISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990833.4FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DRUNK TRAFFICOFFENDERS ACCORDING TO RACE IN THE MAGIS­TERIAL DISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990843.5FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF BAC LEVELS OFTRAFFIC OFFENDERS IN THE MAGISTERIALDISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990853.6BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OFVEHICLE-RELATED OFFENCES IN THE MAGISTERIALDISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD01 JANUARY- 30 JUNE 199089(xiv)

3.7BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OFDOCUMENT OFFENCES IN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTOF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY ­30 JUNE 1990923.8FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICANTS FORDRIVERS' LICENCES AT THE NATAL PROVINCIALADMINISTRATION IN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTOF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY ­30 JUNE 1990953.9FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICANTS FORLEARNERS' LICENCES AT THE NATAL PROVINCIALADMINISTRATION IN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OFLOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY -30 JUNE 1990963.10FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICATIONS FORCERTIFICATES OF FITNESS AT THE NATAL PROVIN­CIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE MAGISTERIALDISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990973.11FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICATIONS FORCERTIFICATES OF ROADWORTHINESS AT THE NATALADMINISTRATION IN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OFLOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY -30 JUNE 1990984.1FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION· OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSACCORDING TO POLICE STATIONS FOR THE PERIOD01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 19901114.2BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OFTRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO POLICE STATIONSFOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990(xv)114

4.3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES OF VEHICLESINVOLVED IN TRAFFIC CRIME COMMISSION DURING THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1184.4 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSACCORDING TO THE MONTH OF TRAFFIC OFFENCECOMMISSION FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE1990 1214.5 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO THE MONTH OF COMMISSIONFOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1244.6 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSACCORDING TO DAY OF TRAFFIC OFFENCE COMMISSIONFOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1284.7 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO DAY OF TRAFFIC OFFENCECOMMISSION FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE1990 1314.8 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSACCORDING TO TIME OF TRAFFIC OFFENCE COMMISSIONFOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1354.9 BP~WN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO TIME OF COMMISSION FORTHE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1384.10 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS FOR THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1424.11 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO AGE FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 145(xvi)

4.12 SEX DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS FOR THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1504.13 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO SEX FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1534.14 RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS FOR THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1574.15 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO RACE FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1604.16 NATIONALITY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSFOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1654.17 OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSFOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1684.18 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO OCCUPATION FOR THE PERIOD01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1714.19 ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS FORTHE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1774.20 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO PLACE FOR THE PERIOD01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 1806.1 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE NATURE OF PENA­LIZATION OF 4771 TRAFFIC OFFENDERS FOR THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990 242(xvii)

6.2FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATIONACCORDING TO TRAFFIC OFFENCES COMMITTEDDURING THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE19902556.3FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATIONACCORDING TO RACE FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY - 30 JUNE 19902596.4FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATIONACCORDING TO SEX FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY - 30 JUNE 19902636.5FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATIONACCORDING TO AGE FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY - 30 JUNE 19902666.6FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATIONACCORDING TO OCCUPATION FOR THE PERIOD01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 19902706.7FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATIONACCORDING TO AMOUNT PAID FOR THE PERIOD01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 19902746.8FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATIONACCORDING TO TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT FORiTHE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE-19902786.9FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSACCORDING TO COURT APPEARANCES FOR THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 19902816.10DISPARITY IN PENALIZING SPEEDING TRAFFICOFFENDERS289(xviii)

6.11DISPARITY IN PENALIZING DRUNK TRAFFIC OFFEN­DERS2906.12DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERSWHODISREGARDED A BARRIER LINE2916.13DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERSWHODISREGARDED A STOP SIGN2926.14DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES RECKLESSLY AND/OR NEGLIGENTLY2936.15DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES WITHOUT OWNERS' CONSENT2936.16DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES WITH DEFECTIVE BRAKES2946.17DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES WITH DEFECTIVE TYRES2956.18DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES WITH DEFECTIVE STEERING2956.19DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES WITH DEFECTIVE STOP LIGHTS2966.20DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES WITH DEFECTIVE DIRECTION INDI­CATORS2966.21DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS FORFUEL LEAKAGE FROM VEHICLES2976.22DISPARITY IN PENALIZING UNLICENSED MOTORVEHICLE DRIVERS(xix)298

6.23DISPARITY IN PENALIZING MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERSWITH FRAUD DRIVERS'LICENCES2996.24DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WITHNO PROFESSIONAL DRIVING PERMIT2996.25DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE UNLICENSED MOTOR VEHICLES3006.26DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHOOPERATED TAXIS WITH ONE PASSENGER OVERLOAD3006.27DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHOOPERATED TAXIS WITH NO CERTIFICATES OF FITNESS301(xx)

LIST OF FIGURESFIGUREPAGE4.1 STAGES IN THE APPREHENSION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS 1084.2 TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDING TO POLICE STATIONS 1124.3 TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO POLICE STATIONS 1154.4 TYPES OF VEHICLES INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC OFFENCES 1194.5 TRAFFIC OFFENDERS OVER A SIX-MONTH PERIOD 1224.6 TRAFFIC OFFENCES COMMITTED OVER A SIX-MONTHPERIOD 1254.7 TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDING TO DAYS OF THE WEEK 1294.8 TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO DAYS OF THE WEEK 1324.9 TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDING TO TIMES OF THE DAY 1364.10 TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO TIMES OF THE DAY 1394.11 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS 1434.12 TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO AGE GROUPS OFTRAFFIC OFFENDERS 1464.13 TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO AGE GROUPS OFTRAFFIC OFFENDERS 1474.14 SEX DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS 151(xxi)

4.15 TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO SEX 1544.16 TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDING TO RACE 1584.17 TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO RACE 1614.18 TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO RACE 1624.19 TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDING TO NATIONALITY 1664.20 TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDING TO OCCUPATION 1694.21 TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO OCCUPATION 1724.22 TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDING TO PLACE OF OFFENCECOMMISSION 1784.23 TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO PLACE 1814.24 TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO PLACE 1825.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF NATAL PROVINCIAL 196ADMINISTRATION,EMPANGENI TRAFFIC DIVISION5.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF EMPANGENI MUNICIpALITyTRAFFIC DEPARTMENT 1995.3 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF RICHARDS BAY MUNI-CIPALITY TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT 2006.1 NATURE OF PENALIZATION"OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS 2436.2 PENALIZATION ACCORDING TO TRAFFIC OFFENCES 2566.3 PENALIZATION ACCORDING TO RACE OF OFFENDERS 260(xxii)

6.4 PENALIZATION ACCORDING TO SEX OF OFFENDERS 2646.5 PENALIZATION ACCORDING TO AGE OF OFFENDERS 2676.6 PENALIZATION ACCORDING TO OCCUPATION OF OFFEN-DERS 2716.7 PENALIZATION ACCORDING TO AMOUNT PAID 2756.8 PENALIZATION ACCORDING TO AMOUNT PAID 2766.9 PENALIZATION ACCORDING TO TERM OF IMPRISON-MENT 2796.10 TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDING TO COURT 282APPEARANCES6.11 TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDING TO COURTAPPEARANCES 283(xxiii)

LIST OF ANNEXURESA.MAPSHOWING THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OFLOWER UMFOLOZI339B.INFORMATION (CONTENT ANALYSIS) SCHEDULE:"PENALIZATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS IN THEMAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI".340C.WRITTEN NOTICE TO APPEAR IN COURT360D.SPOT FINE CITATION361(xxiv)

SUMMARYThis research is based on the penalization of trafficoffenders in the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi. Forpurposes of collecting data, a structured, pre-coded (contentanalysis) information schedule has been implemented to capturedata on traffic offences and traffic offenders. Unstructuredinterviews were also implemented to supplement official datacollected at the magistrate's court at Empangeni. The chiefmagistrate, presiding jUdicial officers, public prosecutors,clerk of the court and traffic officers were interviewed.The voluminous number of traffic violations in South Africanecessitated the enactment of road traffic legislation.Traffic legislation applicable to drivers of motor vehiclesinclude the Road Traffic Ordinance No. 21 of 1966 (which wasin force up to 31 May 1990) as well as the Road Traffic ActNo. 29 of 1989. The comprehensive function of trafficlegislation is to bring about a state of equilibrium intraffic safety and to discourage (deter) by means ofpenalization further commission of traffic offences.The classification of traffic offences is the actual focalpoint of the consideration of penalization of trafficoffenders. For purposes of this research, traffic offenceshave been arbitrarily dichotomized into three discretecategories:* driving offences~* vehicle-related offences~ and* document offences.(xxv)

Traffic offenders are consequently classified according to thecommission of the three categories of traffic offences. Thecausation of traffic offences can be explained in relation toindividual-human and social environmental factors.Correlation analyses of 4771 traffic offenders have beeneffected in relation to the three identified categories oftraffic offences including traffic dynamics. Correlationanalyses are based on demographic variables such as race, sex,age and occupation. Data are portrayed in tabular form.Traffic control in the magisterial district of Lower Umfoloziis effected by three traffic organizations:* Natal Provincial Administration (based at Empangeni):* Empangeni municipal traffic department: and* Richards Bay municipal traffic department.The primary aim of traffic law enforcement is to maintaintraffic order by reducing traffic offences. Traffic officersperform the following important functions: administrative,executive and supervisory acts of authority.Penalization of traffic offenders follows the violation oftraffic laws. The Road Traffic Act (Act 29 of 1989)prescribes penalization of traffic offenders, while theCriminal Procedure Act (Act 51 of 1977) prescribes the rangeof sentences that must be imposed on (traffic) offenders.Disparities with regard to penalizing traffic offenders werediscovered by means of this investigation which brought tolight many issues reflected as key findings. It has beenestablished that Whites featured predominantly in drivingoffence commission, while Blacks featured predominantly in thecommission of vehicle-related offences. Asians and Coloureds(xxvi)

committed traffic offences to a lesser extent. Most trafficoffenders paid an admission of guilt fine. This accounts forthe fact that the majority of traffic offenders did not appearin court. Recommendations have been made which are notprescriptive. The ultimate aim of penalization of trafficoffenders in the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi shouldbe aimed at the prevention of traffic offences.(xxvii)

OPSOMMINGHierdie ondersoek is gebaseer op die penalisering vanverkeersoortreders in die Laer Umfolozi landdrosdistrik. 'nGestruktureerde, vooraf gekodifiseerde inligtingskedule is asdataversamelingstegniek ten opsigte van verkeersoortredings en-oortreders gebruik.ongestruktureerde onderhoude is ook gevoer met diehooflanddros , voorsittende regsbeamptes, staatsaanklaers,klerk van die hof en verkeersinspekteurs om die gegewens,afkomstig uit amptelike hofrekords, aan te vul.Die groot aantal verkeersoortredings in suid-Afrika noodsaakdie verordening van verkeerswetgewing in suid-Afrika.Verkeerswetgewing wat van toepassing is op bestuurders vanmotorvoertuie sluit die Padverkeersordonnansie (Ordonnansie 21van 1966) wat van krag was tot 31 Mei 1990 en die huidigePadverkeerswet (wet 29 van 1989)in. Die omvattende funksievan verkeerswetgewing is hoofsaaklik daarop gemik om 'n balanste handhaaf tussen verkeersveiligheid en die afskrikking vanverkeersoortreders deur middel van verkeerspenalisering.Die klassifikasie van verkeersoortredings vorm die fokuspuntby die oorweging van die penalisering van verkeersoortreders.Vir hierdie doel is verkeersoortredings arbitr~r in driediskrete kategorie@ verdeel* bestuursoortredings,* motorvoertuig-verwante oortredings en* dokument~re oortredings.(xxviii)

Verkeersoortreders is gevo1g1ik ooreenkomstig die oortredingvan hierdie drie kategorie~ verkeersoortredingsgek1assifiseer. Die veroorsaking van verkeersoortredings kanin terme van individuee1-mens1ike en maatskap1ikeomgewingsfaktore verk1aar word.Korre1asie-ontledings is ten opsigte van die driege!dentifiseerde kategorie@ verkeersoortredings, ins1uitendeverkeersdinamika, uitgevoer. Hierdie korre1asie-ont1edingsis gebaseer op demografiese verander1ikes soos: ras, ges1ag,ouderdom en beroepstatus.verbee1d.Die gegewens word tabe11ariesVerkeersbeheer in die Laer Umfo1ozi landdrosdistrik geskieddeur midde1 van drie verkeersinste11ings, naam1ik -* die Natalse Provinsia1e Administrasie (wat op Empangenigesete1 is),* die munisipa1e verkeersdepartement van Empangeni en* die Richardsbaaise munisipa1e verkeersafdeling.Die handhawing van die verkeersorde by wyse van dieuitskake1ing van verkeersoortredings, b1yk die prim~re doe1witvan verkeerswetstoepassing te wees.Verkeersbeamptes verrig die vo1gende belangrike funksies:administratief, uitvoerend en toesighouding(verkeerswaarneming).Die pena1isering van verkeersoortreders vo1g op die oortredingvan die Padverkeerswet (Wet 29 van 1989) wat die pena1iseringvan verkeersoortreders voorskriftelik re@l,van vonnisse wat opgel~terwy1 die omvangmoet word deur die Strafproseswet (Wet51 van 1977) voorgeskryf word. Dispariteite betreffende diepenalisering van verkeersoortreders is deur midde1 van hierdie(xxix)

ondersoek blootgele en vraagstukke wat hieruit voortvloei, isvervat in sleutelaanbevelings. Daar is vasgestel dat Blankesoorgewend verantwoorde1.ik is vir die pleging vanbestuursoortredings, terwyl Swart motorbestuurders oorwegendvoertuig-verwante oortredings gepleeg het. AsH~rs enK1.eur1.inge was in 'n mindere mate by a1.drie kategoriel!verkeersoortredings betrokke. Die oorgrote meerderheidverkeersoortreders het sku1.derkenningsboetes betaa1. wat ookverklaar waarom hierdie meerderheid nie in die hof verskyn hetnie.Die aanbeve1.ings wat in hierdie ondersoek vervat is, isgeensins voorskrifte1.ik van aard nie. Die uiteinde1.ikedoe1.wit van die pena1.isering van verkeersoortreders in dieLaer Umfo1.ozi 1.anddrosdistrik moet afgestem wees op dievoorkoming van verkeersoortredings.(xxx)

CHAPTER 1GENERAL ORIENTATION1.1 INTRODUCTIONThis investigation is based on empirical research on thepenalization of traffic offenders in the magisterial districtof Lower Umfolozi. The whole world, including themagisterial district of Lower Umfolozi, is perturbed over theincreasing commission of traffic offences. Trafficviolations therefore imply that traffic offenders should bepenalized (punished). Members of the society and especiallycriminal justice practitioners (including traffic officers)use the prevailing road traffic legislation to penalizetraffic offenders. To investigate the exact number ofpersons (traffic offenders) charged with traffic offences, howmany are found guilty and penalized and to correlate relevantdemographic variables such as: age, sex, race and occupationof traffic offenders, require exact research methods andtechnigues.The success of an investigation into the penalization oftraffic offenders is contingent upon the control rate, theseverity of traffic offences and the effectiveness of trafficlaw enforcement in the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi.The development (due to town planning and industrial growth)of the wheel and the corresponding development oftransportation vehicles over the ages contributed to thegrowth of traffic offences and thereby complicating thepenalization of traffic offenders. Traffic offences remainan indisputable fact of life for many community members.1

Traffic offences have continued to escalate. Traffic crimeis a societal problem, but it is evident that penalization oftraffic offenders is a traffic criminal justice issue.Traffic crime prevention should thus be given top priority.Prevention of traffic crime without proper examination andevaluation of the penalization of traffic offenders is futile.Criminological (and also penological) research on thepenalization of traffic offenders is essential in order toestablish its nature, extent and consistency beforepreventative measures could ever be implemented. It is anacknowledged fact that the public, but more particularly themotor vehicle driver, is responsible for most traffic lawviolations and these violations are due to numerous anddiverse causes (Ryan, 1973:3). It is therefore evident thatthere is a category of traffic crime victims who have sufferedas a result of traffic crime victimization (traffic offencecommission).L 2 RESEARCH: RATIONALERationale provides the reason for the research. The researchrationale resides in the application of the knowledge acquiredwith regard to the question of penalization of trafficoffenders. This application will or can take place oncertain levels namely to make an attempt at predicting thetrend and movement of traffic crime and penalization oftraffic offenders and all acquired knowledge and insightregarding the penalization of traffic offenders be used toimprove the effective measures of preventing traffic crimes.This implies that the results of this research will be madeavailable to the relevant authorities dealing with traffic lawenforcement and penalization of traffic offenders.2

1.3 AIMS OF THE RESEARCHIt appears from the literature that no research of this kindhad been undertaken recently in South Africa, even also not sofor the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi. The aims ofthis research are the following:(a)to establish whether any discrepancies or not, exist withregard to the penalization of traffic offenders:(b) to make a contribution towards the study of trafficscience by means of aliterature study:(c) to ascertain the exact number of traffic offenderscharged with traffic offences over a given time:(d)to ascertain how many traffic offenders were found guiltyand penalized: and(e) to effect correlations and comparisons with regard totraffic offences and specific demographic variables suchas: race, sex, age and occupation of traffic offenders.1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGYResearch methodology merely refers to an operational frameworkwithin which the facts~are placed so that their meaning may beseen more clearly (Leedy, 1985:91: Binder & Geis, 1983:11).A review of any of the standard literature and research willreveal a broad spectrum of methodological terminology. Threemajor research methods are open to criminologists whenconducting criminological investigations and the study of thecrime phenomenon in general and traffic crime in particular,namely:3

(a)The method of case analysis when the researcher regardscrime as a phenomenon which arise from the human being inits uniqueness (Van der Westhuizen, 1977:2-3). Thisalso applies to traffic crime studies.(b) The method of mass observation, when the researcherregards crime as a social phenomenon (Van der Westhuizen,1977:2-3) . This is also applicable to traffic crimestudies.(c) The analvtical method: in order to eliminate one-sideddescriptions and interpretations, it would be desirableto synthesize the above two research methods (Van derWesthuizen, 1977:3). The method to be used in thisresearch is the analytical descriptive technique and theanalysis of traffic offences and the nature ofpenalization of traffic offenders. The rAionale forusing this method resides in the fact that thepenalization of traffic offenders (not undermining thecausal aspects of traffic crimes - for a discussion ofthese aspects see chapter 3, paragraph 3.4) is acombination of individual-human and social factors. Theanalytical research method meets all the requirementsand, with a view to establishing and securing theidentity of criminology, should be applied consistentlyin all criminological research. The following are thefunctions and objectives of the analytical method:* Description (by means of which the goal of knowledgeis attained), where statistics are not only used todescribe the extent of traffic crime but also itsincrease and decrease (frequency).4

* Explanation (by means of which the goal of insightis achieved), where statistics and certainstatistical techniques enable the researcher to makecorrelations (associations) and comparisons betweentraffic offenders and traffic offences, penalizationand other demograpic variables such as: age, sex,race and occupation of traffic offenders.* Prediction and control which allow for the purposesof predicting and (symbolic) controlling thefluctuation, incidence and movement of trafficoffences in particular.In the analytical method the methods of case analysis and massobservation are merely regarded as techniques:(a)Descriptive techniques (verbal-scientific, typologicaland statistical) are used to acquire knowledge intotraffic offences and penalization of traffic offenders(Van der Westhuizen, 1977:10-11).(b)Explanatory techniques (tabular analysis and correlationanalysis) are used to acquire insight into socialphenomena such as traffic offences and penalization oftraffic offenders (Van der Westhuizen, 1977:10). Rawscores (indicated as N) and percentages (%) will be usedto present data in tabular form. In addition,correlation analyses will also be undertaken in order toallow for two or more variables to be plotted againsteach other.5

(c) Prediction techniques (categorization and extrapolation)and control techniques (preventi ve. legal andintegrative) are used in applicative investigations forpredicting and controlling (traffic) crime (Van derWesthuizen. 1977:10).There are specific techniques of the analytical method whichare also used such as: sampling techniques. data collectingtechniques and goal achievement techniques (Van derWesthuizen. 1977, Van der WaIt et al. 1977:176-177).Techniques of the analytical method have also been used inthis research. The most important data collecting techniquesare the interview, questionnaire. information (contentanalysis) schedule and documentary study (Van der WaIt et al.1977:197). A content analysis schedule is a technique thatcan be used by the researcher. Fitzgerald & Cox(1987:110-111) maintain that a content analysis systematizesthe use of documents by providing a predetermined codingscheme and categories for tabulating the contents of aninformation schedule. The number of entries tabulated ineach variable indicates the direction or weight of thedocument (content) analysis evidence. The personalconversation by which research information is obtained isknown as the interview. There are specific types ofinterviewing, namely the directed or focus interview. theformal structured interview and the non-directed orunstructured interview (Van der WaIt et al. 1977:198). Theresearcher used the non-directed or unstructured interview toobtain more clarity about aspects which were not so clear tothe researcher. These aspects which were unclear cropped upfrom the court records. The unstructured interview was alsoused to obtain more information about penalization of trafficoffenders. The court officials interviewed, included thechief magistrate, additional magistrates (judicial officers),6

traffic officers of Ernpangeni and Richards Bay municipalities,the station commander of the Natal Provincial Administration(based at Ernpangeni), public prosecutors, clerk of the courtand court interpreters.Another type of data collecting technique is aquestionnaire.Questionnaires are forms for secgring answers to questions andsuch forms are completed by the respondent (Van der WaIt etal. 1977:204; Goode & Hatt, 1952:133). For purposes of thisresearch, a questionnaire was not used but instead aninformation (content analysis) schedule (Annexure B). Vander ·Walt et al. (1977:203-204) aver that the terms"questionnaire" and "schedule" cause considerable confusion asa result of the different ways of handling them and the formthey assume. An information schedule refers to a documentwith the list of variables set by the researcher and theanswers to these variables are provided by the researcher (Vander WaIt et al. 1977:204). The researcher compiled aninformation schedule (see Annexure B) with a list of variablesand answers to these variables were provided by theresearcher. A researcher can obtain a great deal ofinformation by analyzing written documents, mass media reportsor data kept by formal institutions for administrative orgovernmental purposes (Van der WaIt et al. 1977:212;Fitzgerald & Cox, 1987:107). The researcher analyzed thecourt records pertaining to the penalization ofoffenders.trafficFor purposes of collecting data, a structured pre-codedinformation schedule (see Annexure B) has been devised by theresearcher to capture relevant information from writtennotices to appear in court, Criminal Record Books (J546), spotfine citations, etc. with regard to the penalization oftraffic offenders in the magisterial district of Lower7

Umfolozi. Permission to scrutinize court documents has beengranted by the Chief Magistrate. In order to eliminatepossible confusion and also to allow for the convenientacquisition of data, the information schedule has beencompiled on the basis of information reflected in writtennotices (to appear in court) issued in terms of the CriminalProcedure Act (South Africa, 1977:Section 56). For thispurpose it has been divided into four discrete divisions:* section A,viz. name ofwhich reflects administrative information,police station and name of court of trial.* Section B contains the demographic characteristics of thetraffic offender, viz. race, sex, age, occupation, etc.* Section C is devoted to the dynamics of the trafficoffence and include place where a traffic offence wascommitted (ecological distribution), date (month of theyear) when committed as well as the day of the week andtime of the day. The types of traffic offences are alsoaccounted for in accordance with the arbitraryclassification proposed by the researcher. There arethree categories of traffic offences: driving offences,vehicle-related offences and document offences.* section D specifically deals broadly with thepenalization of traffic offenders. Traffic offenderswere sUbjected to various forms of penalization: anadmission of guilt fine, fine, deferred fine, spot fine,imprisonment, periodical imprisonment, suspendedsentence, whipping, treatment in a rehabilitation centre,cancellation and endorsement of driver's licence, etc.This section also contains information regarding the8

amount paid in respect of an admission of guilt, fine,deferred fine and spot fine. This section also includesinformation pertaining to terms of imprisonment.There are various types of documentary sources and these maybe either primary or secondary (Van der WaIt et al. 1977:212).Data from primary documentary sources are obtained directly bythe techniques of first-hand observation such as interviewsand an information schedule as applied by the researcher.This implies that the researcher himself collected the data.The data in secondary documentary sources is second-hand innature and therefore indirect. The most importantdocumentary sources are reports, articles in periodicals,books, diaries, biographies, unpublished sources (such astheses, dissertations) and reports on research projects (Vander WaIt et al. 1977:212-214). The researcher analyzed theofficial reports and criminal record books at the magistrate'soffice (based at Empangeni) and the books, articles inperiodicals and unpublished sources. The use of documentarystudies is also known as document analysis (Fitzgerald & cox,1987:108).Sampling is another technique of the analytical method. Asample can be defined as the numerical reduction of thepopUlation, a partial collection of the population or a validrepresentation of the population (Van der Westhuizen, 1977:40;Van der WaIt et al. 1977:191; Leedy, 1985:147). A sampleconsists of selected elements from a population that will beobserved in order to learn something about the population.In order to learn something about the popUlation of themagisterial district of Lower Umfolozi, the researcherselected elements such as traffic offences, penalization oftraffic offenders, the elements of time and area (temporal andspatial distribution). The rationale for a sample is that it9

would be difficult for the researcher to include every memberof the community. Fitzgerald & Cox (1987:72) maintain thatthere are two types of sampling techniques, namely probabilityand non-probability sampling. Probability sampling permitsthe researcher to state that any given element in thepopulation will be included in the sample whereasnon-probability sampling does not permit the researcher toestimate the likelihood that an element in the pop~lation willbe selected (Fitzgerald & Cox, 1987:72).Probability sampling techniques used in the analyticalresearch method are:(a) Simple random sampling which gives each individualtraffic offender an equal chance of being the SUbject ofresearch on his/her penalization (Van der WaIt et al.1977:192; Leedy, 1985:155-156).(b) stratified random sampling is applied where thepopulation evinces significant strata as in the case ofsocio-economic classes (Van der Walt et al. 1977:192;Fitzgerald & Cox, 1987:75; Leedy, 1985:156-157).Stratification will not be necessary, however, if itappears that the classes are fairly homogeneous inrespect of the variables being measured. Homogeneouspopulations require small sample groups than doheterogeneous populations. It is for this reason thatthe researcher encountered a large sample because theclasses of traffic offenders were heterogeneous inrespect of the variables being measured.(c) Cluster sampling - the smallest unit into which apopulation can be divided is known as an element. Whenelements are groupzd together they form a collection.10

When the sample unit is a collection we speak of clustersampling (Fitzgerald & Cox, 1987:78-79; Leedy,1985:158-159). Cluster sampling involves dividing apopulation into a number of groups, called clusters, onthe basis of some criteria e. g. geographical area,phenomena such as traffic crime and penalization.It should be noted that, in this research, the researcherarbitrarily selected 4771 traffic offenders penalized inthe magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi during theperiod 01 January 1990 to 30 June 1990. The sample usedin this investigation is therefore based on all thetraffic cases for the said period, obtained andscrutinized from official court documents.1.5DELIMITATION OF RESEARCHCriminological and penological researcha proper delineation (delimitation).most important types of delimitation:cannot proceed withoutThe following are thequantitative;qualitative;geographical (spatial);chronological (temporal); andconceptual (Van der Westhuizen, 1977:38; Leedy,1985:62-63) .11

1..5.1 Quantitative delimitationQuantitative delimitation in this research project, means thatthe research will be limited to a particular universe orrepresentative sample (for a discussion of sampling, seeparagraph 1.4).Quantitatively, three categories of traffic offences (seeAnnexure B) and traffic offenders will be investigated andcorrelated with other demographic variables.1..5.2 Qualitative delimitationIt refers to the nominal reduction of research. This impliesthat research is delineated in accordance with certaincharacteristics or qualities which are present in eachindividual traffic offender.. Characteristics such as age,sex, race, etc. are usually the major refining criteria butany other human characteristic or social distinction couldalso be used, for example, socio-economic status, intelligentquotient, income, occupation, etc. • In as far as thisresearch is concerned the researcher highlighted the followingqualities of traffic offenders: age, sex, race and occupation.The court records only reflect these demographic variables.The description of traffic offences is based on the arbitraryclassification proposed by the researcher. There are threediscrete categories of-traffic offences:* driving offences:* vehicle-related offences: arid12

*document offences.of traffic offences3.2.An exposition of the classificationis outlined in chapter 3, paragraphl.5.3Geographical (spatial) delimitationResearch is confined to a particular area, zone or region.Research onthe penalization of traffic offenders isrestricted to the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozisituated on the Natal North Coast (see Annexure A).The magistrate's court of Lower Umfolozi district is locatedin Empangeni and there is also KwaMbonambi periodic court. Amap (Annexure A) is attached with the purpose of portrayingthe magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi and the placeswhere traffic offences were committed. It should be notedthat it has been arbitrarily decided to only identifyEmpangeni and Richards Bay towns rather than to enumerate thevarious streets and places in these towns. The mostimportant places of traffic offence commission were thefollowing:Empangeni;Richards Bay;N2(stretches from Durban to Mkuze);,R619 (from Enseleni to Richards Bay);R34(from Melmoth to Richards Bay);KWaMbonambi;13

Ngwelezane Road (from Ngwelezane to Empangeni); andBIOjUmhlathuzi Valley sugar Company road (from Esikhawiniand joins R34).1.5.4 Chronological (temporal) delimitationIt refers to the selection of a particular period. Thisresearch is based on the penalization of traffic offenders inthe magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi between 01 January1990 and 30 June 1990.1.5.5 conceptual delimitationThis type of limitation implies that a researcher requiresclear and scientifically precise definitions of the conceptswith Which he proposes to work. Concepts are defined inparagraph 1.6. An operational definition of concepts will beattempted: that is, the definition will interpret the conceptas it is employed in relation to this research. It is thusessential to know how the researcher define certain concepts.This shall not mean that there will be a subscription to suchdefinitions, but so long as it is known precisely what theresearcher means when employing a particular concept, itshould be possible to understand the research and appraise itobjectively (Geode & Hatt, 1952).1.6 DEFINITION OF CONCEPTSIt is essential that concepts be clearly defined in order toeliminate distortions. Distortions may be eliminated ifspecific requirements are met. According to Stoker(1961:70-71) definitions must:14

(a)be true;(b)be unambiguous:(c)contain no superfluities and should not beg the question;(d)contain no contradictions;(e)be positive;(f)be adequate; and(g)be clearly formulated.To appreciate and understand the problems of research onpenalization of traffic offenders it is necessary to share acommon understanding of the basic concepts. The informationprovided herein is a composite of those concepts found ingeneral criminological usage. The following definitions areby no means complete or intended to meet the needs of everysituation which will confront the researcher. It is rather aspringboard into one of the most fascinating areas of trafficlaw enforcement and penalization of traffic offenders.1.6.1 PenalizationPenalization (which here implies punishment)of criminal law.punishment by the state.the stipulation of penalization.is the sanctionPenalization refers to the imposition ofThere is no traffic offence withoutThis is reflected in thedoctrine of nullum crimen sine lege (Van der WaIt et al.1977:26-27: Rabie & strauss, 1985:6-7). Penalizationtherefore follows the breaking of a legal norm (Wright,1973:22). . Penalization is obviously an element of a traffic15

Joffence. It is an intentional infliction of suffering upon atraffic offender and implies the expression of the community'scondemnation and disapproval of the traffic offender and hisconduct. This denotes that penalization is explained interms of retribution.Rabie & Strauss (1985:7) define penalization as follows:----,... "Punishment is the balancing of a punishable infringement ofthe law with the infliction of an evil which is commensuratewith the gravity of the injustice and the mens rea of theoffender, which expresses a public disapproval of theoffender's act and thereby leads to verification of the law."Retribution simply implies penalization (Ross, 1.975:36;Barnett & Hagel, 1977:211-212; Halleck, 1967:3; Rabie &Strauss, 1985:6-8).The researcher proposes to give thefollowing operational definition: by penalization is meantpunishment imposed or inflicted by the court on the trafficoffender for committing a traffic offence. For purposes ofthis research, penalization will include all forms ofpunishment imposed on traffic offenders.1.6.2 Traffic offenceOdendaal (1968:28) gives the following definition: "'nVerkeersoortreding is 'n handeling of versuim van 'n persoonwaardeur of iemand anders se lewe in gevaar gestel kan wordten gevolge van dieonveilige bestuur van 'n voertuig ofwaardeur onoordeelkundige, onbedagsame of ongemagtigde optredesy eie lewe op'n openbare pad in gevaar kan stel of optredewat andersins antisosiaal van aard of in stryd is metopenbare padverkeer-voorsorgmaatre~ls;die optrede kanopsetlik of onopsetlik geskied maar, wat ook al die geval, diegevolge kan ewe ernstig wees." It is therefore evident thata traffic offence/traffic crime/traffic violation means theviolation or transgression of road traffic legislation (Louw16

et al. 1978:86; Welman, 1971:31). The Road Traffic Act No 29of 1989 (as amended) makes no distinction between trafficoffence, traffic crime and traffic viOlation. For purposesof this research, these three concepts will be viewed assynonymous and will be used interchangeably.1.6.3 Traffic offenderDu Plessis (1981: 5) gives the following definition: "'nVerkeeroortreder is enige persoon wat deur die hof skuldigbevind is aan 'n verkeersoortreding, met 'n begrip van iemandwat, indien hy in die hof sou verskyn het, skuldig bevind souword aan 'n sodanige oortreding. Die rede vir verderekwalifikasie is dat oortreders soms verkies om afkoopboetes tebetaal eerder as om in die hof te verskyn. In ander gevallegebeur dit dat die oortreders nie by die gegewe adresopgespoor kan word nie ten einde 'n dagvaarding te bedien."It is clear from this definition that the concept trafficoffender refers to the individual who has committed a trafficoffence, charged, convicted (found guilty) and penalizedwhether he/she has physically appeared in a court of law ornot. Non-appearance occur in payment of an admission ofguilt fine.1.6.4 TrafficToeliminate any distortion with regard to this concept, theresearcher will rather implement an Operational definition ofgeneral movement of pedestrians (people),ridden animals in streets or on pUblic roads.motor vehicles andOne pedestrianmay constitute a traffic (Clark, 1982:17; smit & potgieter,1982:1).17

1.6.5 DriverClark (1982:17) maintains that a driver is a person who drivesor is in actual physical control of a vehicle. According tothe Road Traffic Ordinance (Natal, 1966:Section 1) and theRoad Traffic Act (South Africa, 1989:Section 1) driver means:"Any person who drives or attempts to drive any vehicle or whorides or attempts to ride any pedal cycle or who guides anydraught, pack or saddle animal or herd or flock of animal ••• "For purposes of this research, an operational definition of adriver of motor vehicle shall be deemed to mean the trafficoffender.1..6.6 Motor vehicleMotor vehicle means any self-propelled vehicle and also refersto a device designed or adapted principally to travel onwheels (South Africa, 1989:Section 1). It is clear from thisdefinition that a motor vehicle is a device by which anyperson or property may be propelled, moved or drawn upon apublic road (Cooper, 1990).1.6.7 Public roadA public road can be defined as a road, street or any otherplace (thoroughfare) commonly used by the pUblic (Natal,1966:Section 1). The concept road refers to a track or wayprepared for passengers (pedestrians), motor vehicles, etc.An operational definition of a street is a road in a town(city) or village usually with houses or buildings at thesides.18

1.6.8 FreewayFreeway refers to a pUblic road or section of a public roadwhich has been designated as a freeway by an appropriate roadtraffic sign (South Africa, 1989:Section 1; Natal,1966:Section 1).1.6.9 Traffic officer~Traffic officer means a person appointed in terms of section3(a) to be in charge of traffic law enforcement (South Africa,1989:Section 1). Police officers are also responsible fortraffic law enforcement. Police officer means: "A member ofany police force established under any law, or any body ofpersons carrying out under any law, the functions of a policeforce and includes a traffic officer appointed in terms ofsection 3" (Natal, 1966:Section 1).1.6.10 Traffic law enforcementLittle (1970:28) opines: "The term "enforcement" usuallyrefers to the intensity of police surveillance of traffic andtechniques used, rather than to the detailed character of theregulations or to the strictness with which they areinterpreted."meansThis implies that traffic law enforcementthe action by which order is maintained in the trafficsituation to ensure the safety of all road users.Consequently traffic order requires efficient, regulative andpredictable action in a given traffic situation (Hand et al.1980:155).19

1.7 REVIEW (SURVEY) OF LITERATUREWhatever the reason, a review of the available literaturesuggests that there is yet much to be done if penalization oftraffic offenders is to be brought into proper penological andcriminological perspective. The researcher has thereforemade a study of the following relevant literature (ascontained in the bibliography):1.7.1 South African literature(a) Cloete & Conradie (1984)This book is aimed primarily at students in TrafficCriminology. The contents accordingly conform to therequirements for prescribed books at university level.Some chapters consequently concentrate on particularaspects of traffic science and are based onscientifically acquired information. The question oftraffic law enforcement, adjudication of traffic offencesand traffic control on South African roads are alsoconsidered. This book is also aimed at the traffic lawenforcement practitioners.(b) Cooper (1990)Cooper has attracted the most attention in criminologicaland penological circles. This work deals with RoadTraffic Legislation in South Africa. It includes theroad traffic regulations and the Road Traffic Act No 29of 1989 which replaced the Road Traffic Ordinance No 21of 1966 is also dealt with in this book. It also goes20

ather further in that it takes a provocatively legalline of argument by outlining the various road trafficregulations.(c) Odendaal (1968)This thesis demonstrates an exhaustive analysis of theeffectiveness of punishment of traffic offenders in SouthAfrican courts. The function of traffic legislation isalso considered.(d) Du Plessis (1981)Du Plessis investigated the number of persons chargedwith reckless driving, how many were found guilty andpunished. This researcher, further, demonstrates hisdissertation in an analysis of reckless driving inPotchefstroom during 1977 and 1978. He also madecomparisons according to demographic variables such as:age, sex, race, etc.(e) Redgment (1990)This author further takes a provocative legal line ofargument. The book deals extensively with the CriminalProcedure Act No 51 of 1977 and also renders decidedcases. sections relevant to the researcher are section56 (written notice to appear in court): section 57 (anadmission of guilt fine): section 341 (spot fines): andsections 274 - 299 (sentences imposed on offenders).

(f) Road Traffic Ordinance No. 21 of 1966This Ordinance was in force up to 31 May 1990. It isworth noting that persons who committed traffic offencesprior to 01 June 1990 (Le. 01 January 1990 to 31 May1990) but tried by a court after 01 June 1990 werepenalized in terms of the Road Traffic Act No. 29 of1589. The Ordinance dealt with the following:* appointment of registering authorities and trafficofficers;* registration and licensing of motor vehicles;* licensing of motor vehicle drivers:* public motor vehicles:* road traffic signs, general speed limit and parkingmeters;* general penalties and legal procedures;* additional powers and duties of officers;* apportionment of fees and fines;* regulations and by-laws; and* penalization of traffic offenders.The Road Traffic Regulations (madeTraffic Ordinance) highlighted the following:in terms of the Road22

egistration and licensing of motor vehicles;brakes, lamps and other lighting equipment on motorvehicles;general equipment on motor vehicles;dimensions, projections and loads on motor vehicles;general requirements for pUblic motor vehicles;road traffic signs; andpenalization of traffic offenders.(g) Road Traffic Act No. 29 of 1989The application of the Act will be discussed in chapter2, paragraph 2.4.3. The requlation of traffic on pUblicroads, fitness requirements and related matters areissues dealt with by the Act under the following aspects:* administrative matters pertaining to registeringauthorities and traffic officers;* registration and licensing of motor vehicles;* fitness of drivers and motor vehicles;* operator fitness;* road traffic signs, general speed limit and parkingmeters;23

* rules of the road.* accidents and accidents reports.* specific traffic offences such as: reckless and/ornegligent driving, inconsiderate driving, drivingunder the influence of alcohol, etc••* presumptions and legal procedure.* regulations and by-laws. and* penalization of traffic offenders.The Road Traffic Regulations (made in terms of the RoadTraffic Act) pertain to the following:fitness of drivers and motor vehicles;road traffic signs, speed limit and parking meters;rUles of the road; andpenalization of traffic offenders.1.7.2 Overseas literature(a) Clark (1982)Clark investigated traffic collisions and traf~"~management related matters. The book containsilluminating information on aspects of traffic law24

enforcement such as:education, trafficenforcement techniques.traffic engineering, trafficsupervision and traffic law(b) Hand, Sherman & Cavanagh (1980)These authors searched for material on traffic control.Each year traffic law enforcement organizations are facedwith an ever-increasing traffic offence commission.Traffic officers deal with preservation of human life byenforcing traffic laws. This book is therefore an idealsource of reference for traffic control and engineering,traffic supervision, traffic law enforcement tactics andthe role of the traffic officer in court.(c) Hood (1972)Traffic offences are the most dangerous and expensive inmodern society.frequent.In terms of numbers they are the mostIt is therefore possible that more people arepenalized for traffic law violations.is at its most acute in the courts,The predicamentsince it is therethat decisions have to be made about penalization.Thisbook is therefore another viable source on penalizing(sentencing) traffic offenders. Judicial officers arefaced with a problem in deciding how to perceive trafficoffenders.attitude amongstOf crucial importance are the differences ofjudicial officers to the relationshipbetween traffic offences and other types of crime.These differences of attitude are a major factor inproducing disparities (discrepancies) in penalizingtraffic offenders.analyses disparities in penalization.It is for this reason that Hood25

(d) Willett (1964)The author focused attention on the study of serioustraffic offences and traffic offenders. This empiricalresearch is preceded by a careful analysis of law, of therole played by the police and of the statistical tablespresented in the book.1.8 PROBLEMS (OBSTACLES) ENCOUNTERED DURING THE RESEARCHThe researcher encountered numerous problems and these arebriefly discussed below:(a) Some particulars of traffic offenders as per writtennotices to appear in court were incomPl~ In somewritten notices the place, date and time of trafficoffence and sex, age, race, nationality and occupation oftraffic offenders were not indicated and these wereviewed as "unknown" by the researcher. This alsoapplied to spot fine citations.(b) In some notices the sections of the Road TrafficOrdinance No 21 of 1966 and the Road Traffic Act No. 29of 1989 as well as regulations made thereunder were notcorresponding with the description of traffic offences.(c) The scarcity of literature (locally and/or overseas) onpenalization of traffic offenders hampered this researc~,Criminological and penological investigations on aspectsrelated to this kind of research are equally rare.(d) The researcher could not have access to written noticesin respect of traffic offenders who appeared for trial.The researcher was informed by court officials that the26

notices had already been destroyed. The researcher,therefore, had to rely on the magistrate's CriminalRecord Book (J546). In this official document provisionis made for full name, age, sex, race and nationality oftraffic offenders. However, only the name (sometimesinitials) and surname were reflected. Other qualities(demographic variables) such as: age, sex, race, etc.were also not indicated. This problem related to thegross incompleteness of the Criminal Record Book. As aresult, these demographic variables are reflected as"unknown" in this research.(e) The dates when traffic offences were committed are"unknown" in relation to traffic offenders who appearedin court because all written notices had already beendestroyed. Written notices that were not available werefor traffic offences committed between 01 January 1990and 31 December 1990. This includes the period coveredby the researcher, 01 January 1990 to 30 June 1990. Forpurposes of this research, the researcher thereforearbitrarily used the dates of trial (as reflected in theCriminal Record Book - J546) of traffic offenders toascertain the number of traffic offenders who appeared incourt and were penalized between 01 January 1990 and 30June 1990. This was the most serious problem (obstacle)encountered because the Criminal Record Book makes noprovision for the dates whencommitted.traffic offences were1.9 CHAPTER DIVISIONIn chapter 1 a general orientation to the study is outlinedwith reference to aspects such as research rationale, researchmethodology, aims, problems encountered, etc. Chapter 2 is27

an exposition of road traffic legislation in South Africa.Chapter 3 relates to the classification of traffic offencesand traffic offenders. Factors that contribute towardstraffic offences are also discussed in this chapter.Chapter 4 analyses traffic offenders and traffic offences.Analyses a~e based on demographic variables (such as age, sex,race, etc.) and traffic dynamics (such as how the trafficoffences came to be known, dates and times of trafficoffences) .Chapter 5 deals with the various aspects of traffic lawenforcement. The main focus of chapter 6 is a detailedanalysis of penalization of traffic offenders. Chapter 7outlines the findings and recommendations pertaining to thepenalization of traffic offenders as is evident (emanates)from this research.1.10 SUMMARYThis research is the first of its kind undertaken in themagisterial district of Lower Umfolozi. The rationale forresearch resides in the application of knowledge acquired withregard to the penalization of traffic offenders. Research isundertaken with specific aims. This research, therefore,aims at bridging the gap in the substantial knowledge aboutpenalization of traffic offenders. Research methodologyimplies an operational framework within which facts are placedso that their meaning may be seen more clearly.Research methodology is a set of methods and proceduresdesigned to achieve clarity about aspects pertaining topenalization of traffic offenders. Criminological researchcannot proceed without proper delimitation. The followingare important types of delimitation (as applicable in thisresearch) :28

quantitative,qualitative,geographical (spatial or ecological),chronological (temporal), andconceptual.It is essential to define concepts in order to appreciate andunderstand issues pertaining to penalization of trafficoffenders. In order to eliminate distortions that may exist,it became necessary for the researcher to define certainconcepts operationally. It should be noted that literaturereview suggests that there is yet much to be done ifpenalization of traffic offenders is to be brought into properpenological and criminological perspective. Research isfraught with problems. The researcher encountered numerousproblems (obstacles) which hampered this research. Thedivision of chapters in respect of this research is alsooutlined in this chapter.29

CHAPTER 2--...ROAD TRAFFIC LEGISLATION IN SOUTH AFRICA2.1 INTRODUCTIONThe considerable increase in motor vehicles on the road, thehigh rate of road accidents, the voluminous number of trafficviolations and the fact that road safety cannot be guaranteedby improvements to road and environmental conditions, hasnecessitated the enactment and review of traffic legislation.Traffic legislation does not simply depend upon itsenforceability in achieving voluntary obedience amongst roadusers, but also on inherent consistency and predictability.This is also another rationale for enacting road trafficlegislation. It is possible that traffic legislation may be,directed at the traffic laws and not taking into account theconsequences thereof. The point of focus, therefore, becomesthe enforceable nature of legislation rather than itsconsequence. The architects of traffic legislation oftenadopt their own individual· attitude and approach to trafficproblems as a point of departure without giving dueconsideration to the attitude and the opinion of thecommunity.__ This may lead to inflexible traffic legislationwhereas the community in which it is implemented is subject torapid change.The possibility exists that there could be a negativeinfluence upon the effectiveness of legislation and this couldbe a. .result of placing too much emphasis on enforcing trafficlegislation. This might foster the development of a careless30

attitude towards traffic legislation and might thereforecomplicate the task of traffic law enforcement authorities.Traffic legislation should reflect the interest of thecommunity rather than simply representing a set of enforceablerules.-~imIn this sense, therefore, traffic legislation shouldat maintaining an equilibrium in order to best serve theinterests of the community. More attention is being paid tothe human factor in traffic conditions because it is felt thatthe driver of a motor vehicle "... must be governed by rulesof driving conduct or the result was [is] highway chaos"(Barkhuizen, 1967:298).2.2 OBJECTIVES AND FUNCTION OF TRAFFIC LEGISLATIONIt is clear that traffic legislation has been enacted withspecific objectives (Barkhuizen, 1967:300; Kriel, 1974:2).Every individual has the right to use public roads and the usethereof should be as humanly as possible. All persons areexpected to be considerate to other road users. The trafficofficer's conduct in his role as maintainer of traffic orderis governed mainly by two sets of traffic legislation, namelythose relating specifically to traffic as such and thoseconcerned with the functions of the traffic officer.2.2.1 Objectives of traffic legislationTraffic laws are aimed at ensuring orderly flow of traffic androad safety by achieving a balance between traffic flow, roadsafety and economy (Trip, 1938:76). In other words, trafficlaws regulate road behaviour in the interests of order.Traffic legislation has a number of broad and diverseobjectives:..31

(a)it prescribes certainindividual road users andconduct. Such behaviouror recklessness;standards of behaviour forjudges certain types of trafficshould not amount to negligence(b)standards of safe behaviour should be brought into linewith the wishes and demands of road users;(c) the various traffic prescriptions (Road Traffic Act andRegulations) should be consistent with each other;(d)traffic legislation is directed at the determination ofguilt and responsibility in road accidents;(e)traffic legislation contains objectives relating toenvironmental elements influencing traffic. Forinstance, buildings and other features should notobstruct visibility or the flow of traffic; and(f)the legal measures aimed at promotion of road safetyshould always go hand in hand with the improvement ofroad and environmental conditions (Barkhuizen, 1967:300).A great deal of traffic legislation consists of aseries ofroad safety prescriptions in written form. The practicalobjective is to lay down rules of traffic conduct so thatevery road user will know exactly what is expected of him(Barkhuizen, 1967:300). It is appropriate to refer toregulations dealing with the functions of traffic officers.There are specific rules which set the limits within which thetraffic officer may act in the execution of his duties.Theyprovide guidelines Which subdivide his functions into three32

areas, namely administrative, executive and supervisory actsof authority (Smit, 1989:3-4). The functions of the trafficofficer will be discussed in chapter 5, paragraph 5.5.2.2.2 The function of traffic legislationThe comprehensive function of traffic legislation is to ensureorder on the roads, and to control and prevent trafficoffences (Oosthuizen, 1975:12-13: Milton & Fuller, 1971:653).Sound principles regarding the use of roads should-be adheredto. To regulate the easy flow of traffic, all drivers ofmotor vehicles should observe all traffic signs, rules andregulations. The application of traffic legislation is aimedat the reduction of risky conduct on the part of the roaduser with the purpose of controlling hisfher behaviour whichcan make a considerable contribution towards fUlfilling theobjectives and functions of traffic legislation. Theobjectives of traffic legislation are more easily achievedwhen they are supported by positive public opinion, attitudesand voluntary compliance.Apparently, the main function of traffic legislation inrelation to road safety and penalization of traffic offendersis to reinforce the duty to take care by providing additionalsafeguards in situations of potential danger. Justice Broome(Odendaal, 1968:35) remarks: "These safeguards, involving asthey do the creation of quite arbitrary criminal offences, arerough and ready, but they are the best that can be devised.They have the obvious disadvantage of making punishableconduct which is not inherently wrong and which often does notinvolve any failure to take due care, but that is the price wemust pay for safer roads."33

The effective functioning of traffic legislation may beinfluenced by a number of factors (Kriel, 1974:5-7).Factors that are characteristic of the application of trafficlegislation also create various problems, for instance, theso-called victimless traffic crimes. A fair percentage oftraffic offences may be classified as such because there is nospecific complaint and immediate victim. Traffic legislationevolved with increased use and complexity of human nature.For traffic legislation to become operative it must beconsistent with the principles of criminal law. Trafficcrime can therefore be seen as the commission or omission ofan act for which there is a prescribed penalization. Thisimplies that traffic legislation consists of various elements(corpus delicti) that must be present in each traffic offencebefore it is complete (Hand et al. 1980:154). When all theelements are present, the traffic offence is complete,regardless of the state of mind of the traffic offender.2.3 PROBLEMS AFFECTING TRAFFIC LEGISLATIONr------~_~ ~;>

high-quality law enforcement through discretion, thedetermination of tolerance thresholds and selective trafficlaw enforcement.2.3.1 criticisms against traffic legislationNumerous criticisms have been levelled against trafficlegislation:(a)there are too many provisions of too diverse nature;(b)correct road behaviour need not necessarily promote theflow of traffic (Barkhuizen, 1967:296). This impliesthat legally permissible road behaviour may still not besafe road behaviour; and(c)the total traffic system needs to be improved because itis outdated and contains numerous loopholes andpenalization of traffic offenders is too light (Erlank &Roux, 1967:104).2.3.2 Acceptability and practicability of trafficlegislationThe acceptability and practicability of traffic legislation iscontingent upon the following basic requirements:* it must actually relate to traffic crime and punishabletraffic crimes;* it must enjoy the support of pUblic acceptance andattitudes. The public is often misinformed since it maythink that the existence of traffic legislation andenforcement constitutes th~ source of revenue and thatits35

traffic legislation serves merely as If a measuringstick for the determination of civil liability of thoseinvolved in automobile accidents. If (Barkhuizen,1967:299); and* it must be enforced (Cloete & Conradie 1984:75-76).2.3.3 Differential nature of traffic legislationIt could be stated with certainty that there are specifictraffic law enforcement problems.There are a1sO-Lundamental~ .._.-_ ..-.~.-.--..!L,.!:9.. ~1:hl1!..51~S !'tn1:jj:ll n_~t:l.lre__ p f .t:J:'a,ff icdif f ere"c es pe_r~

(b)Traffic offences are unique phenomena that should not beequated with the laws of the country and should thereforebe jUdged by special courts of law and be treated bymeans of special methods (Erlank & Roux, 1967:127).(c) Traffic offences hold no social stigmatization for mostpeople. The National Advisory Commission (1973:227)remarks: "It is therefore a basic tenet and anunderlying assumption of traffic law enforcement thatpeople regularly and without any natural consciousness ofwrongdoing violate laws designed to ensure safe use ofthe highways."2.3.4 PUblic opinion and attitudes towards trafficlegislationPublic opinion and attitude is predominantly inclined toidentify a police or traffic officer's action with clearbreaches of the law or breaches of natural law such as murderand rape (Gardiner, 1969:3, National Advisory Commission,1973:227). Erlank & Roux (1967:126) are of the opinion thattraffic accidents and traffic crime commission are not trafficcrimes because they are not committed intentionally. It isfor this reason that there.is a notion that traffic offencesshould not be regarded as ordinary crimes; traffic legislationshould not be applied ·in the same strict or relentless way andtraffic offenders should be tried by special traffic courtsand should also be treated by means of unique techniques.These demands do not merely end with decriminalization butextend the demand for depolicing. Depolicing implies thatminor traffic offences should be overlooked if they do notthreaten or endanger other road users. According to Myren(Radelet, 1973:47) traffic legislation is purely a set of37r

norms for convenience and is not as such part of the legalcode. The enforcement of traffic legislation is thereforenot a police function."'Some authorities think that traffic offences are ordinarycrimes and traffic offenders should be penalized (Willett,1964:3-8). It is thus possible that the breakdown in law andorder may start at the level of traffic corruption. Weston(1978: 4) expresses a neutral 0pl.nl.on: "The provisions of avehicle code are sanctioned law, even though most of theregulated actions are noncriminal." Seen juridically,traffic laws are superfluous if they are not maintained on thesame level as the ordinary laws of the land. This legalopinion is mainly based on the assumption that there is noparticular need for traffic legislation since Roman Dutch Lawand Common Law, both of which exist independently oflegislation, control the use of roads just as they control allother human activities. Common law prescribes that humanbeings should take reasonable precaution so that others arenot injured. The use and extension of road transport createda need for specific road traffic legislation. The architectsof traffic legislation rightly believed that carelessness onroads is an offence against the state and is therefore apunishable traffic offence. Traffic regulations, therefore,belong to the legal code and should as such be enforced as acode of traffic conduct. Traffic legislation is thereforeacceptable to most people. It follows then that traffic lawenforcement is a police function. Van Heerden (1976:4-6)opines that the police have the delegated authority to enforcesuch law. Traffic policing. will always be beset withnumerous problems. Aspects such as road education andtraffic engineering can go a long way towards promoting roadsafety.38

2.3.5 Inaccurate and unreliable dataTraffic legislation is also fraught with the problem ofinaccurate and unreliable data. The objectives of trafficlegislation can be executed much more effectively if it isbased on accurate,,~ meaningful and reliable data. In thisregard there are various shortcomings in traffic legislation.There is a shortage of technical research findings to providethe legislator with the necessary facts regarding roadconduct. The legislative bodies have meagre resources andmanpower to analyze and evaluate traffic legislation (Kriel,1974: 6 ) • This, therefore , results in vagueness andambiguities in traffic legislation which creates problemsthe adjudication of traffic offences and problems for the roaduser.in2.3.6 Risk-AnalysisOne of the functions of traffic legislation is without doubtto prohibit risky behaviour by the road user and in this wayto eliminate it.Entering the traffic situation is acalculated risk. Sabey & Taylor (Schwing & Albers, 1980:44)describe it as follows:"In broad terms travel by road is.understood by most of us to involve some risk, though thelevel of this risk is only dimly perceived and rarely calledinto prominence because it has been with people almost all oftheir lives. Daily journeys from the home are commonplace••• Road accidents are associated with a well-foundedactivity which almost everyone needs and wants to be involvedin; the road accident situation is therefore very differentfrom many threats to personal safety which are far less wellappreciated and sometimes not even recognized until39

irreparable damage has occurred to the persons affected."There are specific forms of road behaviour which are dangerousand may be without any prohibition.Traffic legislation that does not take the risk factors intoaccount can have far-reaching consequences for road safety.The researcher refers to the driving offences which representone of the largest single area of application of trafficlegislation in the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi.It would therefore be to the detriment of drivers if alimit that had been imposed in aspeedspecific area did not takepreviously identified risk factors into account. Therationale for risk analysis resides in the fact that roadsafety programmes have not been successful. It should,however, be noted that drivers are not always fUlly informedas to the purpose and essence of traffic legislation andconsequently approach it indifferently. The reason for thisseems to be that traffic offences are not viewed with the samedegree of gravity as other crimes. Moreover, there isabsence of the social stigma when a traffic offender ispenalized, regardless of how serious it is.2.3.7 Complex and diverse nature of traffic legislationAnother problem surrounding traffic legislation is that itsnature is too comprehensive, diverse and complex. Itinfluences the attitude and standpoint of the road user to alarge extent because the expression "ignorance of the law isno excuse to escape punishment" and that everyone should knowthe law clearly becomes an impossibility.The news media maybring aspects of new traffic legislation to the attention ofthe public.The average road user can scarcely be expectedto keep pace with all amendments pertaining to traffic40

legislation on a regular basis. This impossibility oftenresults in the road user being penalized for violating trafficlaws of which he/she was not even aware of (Middleton, 1974).2.4 APPLICATION OF TRAFFIC LEGISLATIONLegislation or statutory law may be found in a variety offorms, depending on the body which created it. The mostwell-known of this body is Parliament. Its legislation isknown as "acts" and in this research, reference will be madeextensively to the Road Traffic Act, Act 29 of 1989. It isalso appropriate to refer to the notion that serious trafficcrimes entail those traffic offences that are "dangerous" ,while "less serious" traffic crimes refer to those trafficoffences which are less directly threatening to theindividual, his family and society. Sometimes thisdistinction between serious and less serious traffic crimes isexplained as the difference between offences that are wrong inthemselves (mala in se) and those which are wrong because theyare prohibited by the legislature (mala prohibita) (Rabie &Strauss, 1985:4: Waldron, 1980:20-21: Burchell et al.1983:91-92: Nettler, 1984:17).There are also other bodies which have legislative powers:* Provincial Councils and their legislation is generallyknown as "ordinances." In this research, theapplication of the Road Traffic Ordinance No. 21 of 1966will be discussed.It should be noted that the roadtraffic ordinances of Natal, orange Free State, Transvaaland Cape of Good Hope bear the same number and year:* Town and city Councils and their legislation is known as"by-laws": and41

* subordinate legislative power in accordance with a law ofParliament is sometimes given to persons holding certainpositions (for example regulations which are decreed by aspecific Minister). Road Traffic Regulations aredecreed by the Minister of Transport Affairs (SouthAfrica, 1989: section 132).The following commentary is aimed at highlighting otherlegislation which effect the control of traffic offences andpenalization of traffic offenders. Persons who havetransgressed traffic legislation are normally issued withwritten notices to appear in court and failure to appear incourt is punishable (Redgment, 1990:35-36; South Africa,1977:Section 55). It is permissible to pay an admission ofguilt fine with regard to certain less serious offences (SouthAfrica, 1977:Section 57). The admission of guilt procedurecan only be resorted to in two situations:(a) where a summons to secure attendance in a magistrate'scourt has been issued (South Africa, 1977:Section 54); or(b) a written notice to appear in court has been issued tothe traffic offender (South Africa, 1977:Section 56).Spot fines are paid to municipal traffic departments dueto the compounding of certain traffic offences (Redgment,1990:202-203).2.4.1 Road Traffic Ordinance No. 21 of 1966This research covers the period between 01 JanuaryJune 1990. The Road Traffic Ordinance waspenalize traffic offenders up to 31 May 1990.Traffic Act No. 29 of 1989 came into operation1990. The researcher is therefore justified to1990 and 30applied toThe Roadon 01 Junediscuss the42

application of the Road Traffic Ordinance and the Road TrafficAct with regard to the penalization of traffic offenders inthe magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi.The objective of the Road Traffic Ordinance was to repeal,consolidate and amend all laws relating to motor vehicles andthe regulation of public on public roads. It made provisionfor the following aspects:2.4.1.1 Administrative arrangementsThe administrative arrangements included:* appointment of registering authorities:* appointment of traffic officers, inspectors of licences,examiners of vehicles and examiners for driVers'licences;* registration of motor vehicles: and* renewal of licences (Natal, 1966:Sections 1-5).Other aspects pertaining to registration of motor vehicleswere the following: assigning of a registration mark: owner ofmotor vehicle was liable to register it on a specified date: aperiod of grace was allowed for making an application forregistration: application for registration was to follow acertain procedure: registering authorities were allowed toissue registration certificates: owner of motor vehicle wascompelled to affix or display registration marks and there wasa specified period during Which the motor vehicle licence wasvalid (Natal, 1966:Sections 8,9,10,11,12, 14 & 15).43

A registering authority was allowed to issue a motor vehiclelicence and clearance certificate and a roadworthy certificatewas required in respect of certain motor vehicles (Natal,1966:Sections 18-19). A motor vehicle which was stolen orbecame permanently unfit for use was required to be reportedwithin twenty - one days and the owner of a vehicle wasrequired to notify the registering authority of the change ofpermanent and postal addresses (Natal, 1966:Sections 23 & 26).Additional requirements were stipulated in relation to thedisplay of registration marks, clearance certificates andmotor dealers' clearance certificates (Natal, 1966:Section48). Registering authorities were allowed to cancel theregistration of motor vehicles not licensed by certain datesand late payment of registration and licence fees waspenalized (Natal, 1966:Sections 51-52).2.4.1.2 Licensing of drivers of motor vehiclesDrivers of motor vehicles were required to be licensed (Natal,1966:Section 56). Drivers' licences were classified and itwas required that drivers' licences be included in thedrivers' identity documents. This came into force since 01February 1972 (Natal, 1966:Sections 58-59). The possibilityexisted that a person was disqualified from holding alearner's or driver's licence (Natal, 1966:Section 61). Apermit was required to drive a farm tractor (Natal,1966:Section 66). The Administrator was allowed to suspendor cancel the driver's licence and endorsements on drivers'licences lapsed after three years (Natal, 1966:Sections 7072). The instructors of learner drivers were required toobtain a permit from the Administrator (Natal, 1966:Section73). The person who permitted or allowed unlicensed personto drive a motor vehicle was penalized, (Natal, 1966:Section76).&44

2.4.1.3 Vehicle fitness and related permitsThe following aspects were required in respect of public motorvehicles:certificate of fitness;**public driving permit;examination of a motor vehicle; -* certificate of fitness disc;* penalization of the person who held more than onecertificate of fitness in respect of the same motorvehicle;* a certificate of fitness disc was required to be affixed;* suspension or cancellation of certificate of fitness orcertificate of fitness disc by the Administrator;* suspension or cancellation of public driving permit bythe Administrator; and·* it was punishable to permit or allow a person not beingthe holder of public driving permit to drive (Natal,1966:Sections 77-84,87, 92 & 96).45

2.4.1.4 Prescription and displaying of road traffic signsThe Administrator was authorized to prescribe and display roadtraffic signs and persons who failed to obey road trafficsigns were penalized (Natal, 1966:Sections 99-101). Speedlimits were specified as follows:* a general speed limit of 60 kmh was applicable in anurban area (other than a freeway);* a general speed limit of 100 kmh was applicable on pUblicroads other than a freeway outside an urban area; and* a general speed limit of 120 kmh was applicable on afreeway (Natal, 1966:Sections 102(1)(a)-102(1)(c».It is worth noting that certain drivers were allowed to speed(Natal, 1966:Section 103A). Reference was made to thedrivers of emergency vehicles such as ambulances,fire-fighting vehicles and civil defence vehicles. It wasrequired that motor vehicles should be driven on the left sideo~ the roadway and drivers were expected to observe the mannerin which they drove on divided public roads and how theypassed other vehicles (Natal, 1966:Sections 107-109).2.4.1.5 Driver behaviour on pUblic roadsThe following were important rules of the road:driving signals;right of way at certain road junctions;procedure when turning;46

towing of vehicles;stopping and parking of vehicles;compulsory stops;general duties of driver and passenger;vehicle causing excessive noise;use of hooter (warning device);pedestrian's right of way in pedestrian crossing;duties of pedestrians;hindering or obstructing traffic on public roads;vehicle left or abandoned on public road;special provisions relating to freeways; andthe penalization upon violation of these rules (Natal,1966:Sections 111-134) '.certain procedures were followed in respect of the reportingof accidents (Natal, 1966:Sections 135-137), Any person whodrove a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safetyof persons or other property was deemed to have driven thatvehicle recklessly and a person who drove without reasonableconsideration for any other person using the road, waspenalized for inconsiderate driving (Natal, 1966:Sections 138& 139).47

A person was penalized for drunken driving if he drove avehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or adrug having a narcotic effect or with excessive amount ofalcohol in his/her blood (Natal, 1966:Sections 140(1) (a) &(b)). It must be noted that the alcohol concentration inblood should not exceed 0,08 grams per one hundred millilitresof blood. The supply of false information and unauthorizedacts in relation to vehicle registration numbers, registrationmarks and certain documents were punishable (Natal,1966:Sections 141-143). It was also punishable toimpersonate a traffic officer or inspector of licences or toinduce such officer to bribery and corruption (Natal,1966:Section 144).The courts were authorized to order that a driver's licence ora pUblic driving permit be produced before it and it wasempowered to issue an order for the endorsement, suspension orcancellation of a licence or public driving permit ordisqualifying a person from obtaining a learner's or driver'slicence (Natal, 1966:sections 145 & 146). A specificprocedure was followed in respect of the endorsement,suspension or c:ancellation of driver's licence (Natal,1966:Section 148). Penalization was imposed on the basis ofpresumptions with regard to:public roads;freeways;weight ascertained by means of a weigh-bridge ormass-measuring instrument;gross weight of motor vehicles;48

that an owner of motor vehicle drove or parked it:traffic officers: anda copy of entry in a register or record of a registeringauthority was accepted as true record (Natal,1966:Sections 149-157).2.4.1.6 PenalizationTraffic offenders were penalized in the following manner:(a) for the death of a person, a fine was not to exceed R3000or imprisonment not exceeding three years or both:(b) for reckless driving a fine was not to exceed R2000 orimprisonment not exceeding two years or both:(c) for drunken driving or tampering with a motor vehicle(while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or adrug having a narcotic effect) a fine was not to exceedRI000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both: and(d) any other traffic violation was liable to a fine notexceeding R500 or imprisonment not exceeding six monthsor both (Natal, 1966:Section 180A).2.4.2 Road Traffic RegulationsThe researcher deems it fit to briefly highlight the variousregulations (in terms of the Road Traffic Ordinance No. 21 of1966) that were applicable in the penalization of trafficoffenders in the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi - the49

magistrate's courts being Empangeni magistrate's court andKwaMbonambi periodic court. The stipulations formed thebasis of penalization in terms of Road Traffic Ordinance No.21 of 1966. The researcher is also of the opinion that suchan exposition is of crucial importance to orientate the readerwith regard to modern trends in penalizing traffic offendersand to eliminate any possible distortion that might prevailwith regard to the historical background of penalization oftraffic offenders.Drivers of motor vehicles were required (in terms of the RoadTraffic Regulations) to conform to the following requirements:(a) motor vehicles were required to be registered andlicensed (Natal, 1966:Regulations 2-9);(b)brakes, lamps and other lighting equipment were requiredto be fitted to motor vehicles (Natal, 1966:Regulations16-72) ;(c) motor vehicles were required tosteering, hooter, fuel tank cap,(Natal, 1966:Regulations 73-87); andbeequippedsafety belts,withetc.(d)motor vehicles were also required to conform to certainspecifications pertaining to dimensions, projections, andloads and public motor vehicles were required to conformto certain specifications (Natal, 1966:Regulations88-109) •2.4.2.1 PenalizationTraffic offenders were penalized as follows:50

(a)for contravening traffic regulations pertaining to:* load on tyres;* gross vehicle mass and axle massload;* axle massload of vehicle with pneumatic tyres;* distribution of axle massload and wheel massload onvehicle fitted with pneumatic tyres; and* axle massload of vehicle fitted with tyres otherthan pneumatic tyres (Natal, 1966:Regulations100-104) , a fine was not to exceed R2000 orimprisonment not exceeding two years or both (Natal,1966:Regulation 182(a»;(b) for not wearing safety belts (Natal, 1966:Regulation 86),a fine was not to exceed R30 or imprisonment notexceeding ten days or both (Natal, 1966:Regulation182(b»; and(c) for contravening any other regulation, a fine was not toexceed R500 or imprisonment not exceeding six months orboth (Natal, 1966:Regulation 182(c».2.4.3 Road Traffic Act No. 29 of 1989It is commonly accepted that the striving towards uniformtraffic legislation in South Africa was fully realized in 1989with the enactment of the Road Traffic Act No. 29 of 1989which commenced on 01 June 1990 and can thus be seen as themost recent road traffic legislation. The aim of the Act isto consolidate and amend all the laws relating to the51

egistration and licensing of motor vehicles and the driversthereof, to regulate traffic on pUblic roads and to makeprovisions for certain requirements of fitness (Cooper,1990:595). Further, the purpose of this newly promulgatedtraffic legislation is to establish the facts of the trafficoffence and to execute the authority of the Act with regard tothe violation of traffic legislation. The hearing of anyviolation in terms of this Act in a court of law willtherefore be aimed at establishing guilt or innocence as wellas at passing jUdgement as to the validity of the applicationof the Act. The enforcement of traffic legislation is themost important measure in preventing traffic crimes.However, how good our present or future traffic legislationmay be, it will not prevent traffic offences if it remainspigeonholed and unenforced.The following account will point out the bearing of the Act onthe understanding of the commission of traffic offences andthe penalization of traffic offenders in the magisterialdistrict of Lower Umfolozi and aspects which are deemedrelevant here. These include:appointment of registering authorities;appointment of traffic officers;application for registration as inspector oflicences,examiner of vehicles, examiner for drivers' licences;registration and grading of· officers;suspension and withdrawal of registration officers;52

establishment of Training committee for trafficpersonnel:powers and duties of inspectors, examiners and trafficofficers:failure to comply with instruction or direction ofinspector, examiner, traffic officer or peace officer;andimpersonating authorized officer or inducing any suchofficer to bribery and corruption (South Africa,1989:Sections 2-13). These aspects pertaining toregistering authorities and officers constitute the basisof penalization of traffic offenders in that trafficofficers are traffic law enforcers and responsible forissuing written notices to traffic law violators. TheMinister of Transport affairs is authorized to prescribethe registration and licensing system of motor vehiclesin each Province (South Africa, 1989:Section 14).2.4.3.1 Fitness of driversThis refers to licensing, professional driving permit andpowers of the court.2.4.3.1.1 LicensingIt is a requirement that a driver of motor vehicle should belicensed in terms of the Road Traffic Act (South Africa1989:Section 15). The drivers of motor vehicles are compelledto carry their drivers' licences in their vehicles (SouthAfrica, 1991:section 6). The inspector of licences istherefore empowered to demand the immediate production of the53

driver's licence. Thelicence commenced on 01sections 3b & 6).immediate productionJanuary 1993(Southof adriver'sAfrica, 1991:Adriver's licence testing centre is authorized to issue aprovincial licence (also known as a learner's licence) or alicence to drive (also known as a driver's licence) (SouthAfrica, 1989:Section 16). There are specific prescriptionspertaining to the classification and extent of learner's ordriver's licence and these prescriptions relate, inter alia,to the category of alearner's or driver's licence, class ofmotor vehicle to which each category of such licence relatesand the form and content of such licence (South Africa,1989:Section 17).The contravention of traffic legislationis penalized as stipulated in paragraph 2.4.3.9.The researcher deems it fit to highlightwhich also constitute the basis ofoffenders in the magisterial district ofthe following aspectspenalizing trafficLower Umfolozi:(a)Disqualification from obtaining licenceConditions relating to disqualification fromholding learner's or driver's licence are,the following:obtaining orinter alia,age factor (under the age of seventeen years in the caseof a learner's licence or under the age of eighteen yearsin the case of any other licence);suffering from epilepsy;where a driver's licence has been cancelled; and54

addiction to drugs and alcohol (South Africa,1989:section 18). A person, when applying for alearner's or driver's licence, is required to disclosethe disqualification (South Africa, 1989: Section 19).(b)Drivers' licence testing centresThe registering authorities are required to apply to theAdministrator for the registration of driver's licencetesting centres. Such centres must be graded andinspectors must also be appointed (South Africa,1989:Sections 20-22). The graded driver's licencetesting centres are authorized to grant application forand issuing of learner's or driver's licence (SouthAfrica, 1989:Sections 23 & 24).(c)Examination of applicants for drivers' licences.The Administrator is authorized to direct the examinationof an applicant for driver's licence and the holder ofsuch licence is required to give notice in respect ofchange of residential address (South Africa,1989:Sections 25-27). There are conditions under whicha licence not issued in terms of the Road Traffic Actshall be deemed to be a driver's licence. A StateDepartment is authorized to issue learner's or driver'slicence only to persons in its employment (South Africa,1989:Sections 28 & 29).55

(d)Cancellation or suspension of licenceThe Administrator is authorized to cancel or suspend alearner's or driver's licence if such a person has beendisqualified or would constitute a source of danger toother road users if allowed to drive (South Africa,1989:Secticn 30).Endorsement on licence lapses after a period of threeyears from the date upon which it was made and the holderof such licence is allowed to apply to the Administratorif he is of the opinion that there are circumstancesjustifying the cancellation of such endorsement (SouthAfrica, 1989:Section 31 & 32).(e) Prescriptions pertaining to instructors and learnerdriversThe instructors of learner drivers must also be gradedand registered and such registration may be suspended andcancelled (South Africa, 1989:Sections 33-36).Learner's or driver's licences issued contrary to theprovisions of the Road Traffic Act shall not be acceptedas valid documents (South Africa, 1989:Section 38). Theuse of learner's or driver's licence by another person isan offence and the unlicensed person should not beemployed as a driver (South Africa, 1989:Sections 39 &40). An exposition of penalization of traffic offendersis outlined in paragraph 2.4.3.9.56

2.4.3.1.2 Professional driving permitA commentary is that the Road Traffic Ordinance (Natal,1966:Section 78(1) refers to the public driving permit, butfor purposes and subject to provisions of the Road TrafficAct, it shall be known as a professional driving permit. Itis rightly so-called because the holders of such a permit earntheir livelihood as drivers. The following is of utmostimportance for this research:* the professional driver shall be required to hold aprofessional driving permit and such permit shall be keptin the vehicle and the inspector of licences may demandthe immediate production of such permit (South Africa,1991:Sections 3(b) & 10). It should be noted that therequirements of keeping the permit in the vehicle and theimmediate production thereof came into operation on 01January 1993;* the professional driving permit is classified;* an application for such a permit should be made;* the Administrator shall register a professional driver;* a professional driving permit shall be issued;* the Administrator may suspend or cancel the permit; and* a permit not issued in terms of the Act shall not beaccepted as a valid document (South Africa, 1989:Sections41-46, & 49).57

2.4.3.1.3 Powers of the courtThe court may order the production of a licence and a permit(South Africa, 1989:Section 54). A court convicting a personof a traffic offence may issue an order for endorsement,suspension or cancellation of licence or permit or disqualifya person from procuring a licence or permit (South Africa,1989:Section 55).2.4.3.2 Fitness of vehiclesThe realization of the fitness of motor vehicles is contingentupon the following:registration of a testing station;suspension or cancellation of registration of testingstation;appointment of inspectors of testing stations;roadworthy certificate required in respect of motorvehicles;application for a roadworthy certificate;examination of motor vehicle and issue of a roadworthycertificate and roadworthy certificate disc;unroadworthy vehicles not to be licensed;roadworthy certificate disc to be affixed to avehicle;motor58

oadworthy certificate should describe the vehicle inquestion;roadworthy certificate and roadworthy certificate discissued contrary to the provisions of the Act shall not beaccepted as valid documents; andthe Administrator is authorized to suspend or cancel aroadworthy certificate and roadworthy certificate disc(South Africa, 1989:Sections 57-72). Penalization oftraffic offenders is accounted for in paragraph 2.4.3.9.2.4.3.3 Operator fitnessThis implies* registration of an operator (owner of a motor vehicle);* issuing of operator card;* operator card to be displayed on motor vehicle;* duties of operator; and* the Administrator has powers in respect of motorvehicles, drivers and operator activities (south Africa,1989:Sections 74-76, 78 & 79).2.4.3.4 Road traffic signsThere are prov1s10ns relating to road traffic signs, generalspeed limit and parking meters and the Minister is authorizedto prescribe and display road traffic signs (South Africa,1989:Sections 82-83). The Administrator is in turn59

authorized by the Minister to prescribe and display roadtraffic signs.It is an offence to damage road traffic signsand failure to obey road traffic signs is penalized (SouthAfrica, 1989:Sections 82-84).Certain drivers may disregardthe directions of road traffic signs and this may happenduring the course of execution of their duties. Such driversare, inter alia, traffic officers or any person engaged incivil defence, drivers of a fire-fighting vehicle orambulance.Motor vehicle drivers are required not to exceedthe general speed limit in respect of public road, pUblic roadoutside an urban area and on a freeway (South Africa,1989:Section 85). The local authority is authorized toinstal parking meters and drivers should observe the timeallowed and failure to observe will result in penalization(South Africa, 1989:Section 88).2.4.3.5 Rules of the roadIt is imperative for drivers to adhere to the following rulesin terms of the Road Traffic Act:(a)vehicles should be driven on the left side of roadway:(b)vehicles should be passed with great care:(c)driving signals shoUld be given in time in anticipationof the reaction of other road users:(d) carefulness is required in respect of right of way atroad junctions:(e)specific procedure should be followed when turning:(f)parking of vehicles;60

(g)compulsory stops should be obeyed;(h) a hooter should be used when necessary and vehicles withexcessive noise should not be driven on public roads;(i) no person is allowed to hinder or obstruct traffic onpublic road;(j)no vehicle should be left abandoned on public road; and(k) rules relating to freeways, towing of vehicles, stoppingof vehicles and pedestrians right of way in pedestriancrossing and their duties (South Africa, 1989:Sections89, 91-98, 100, 103, 104, 109, 110, 113, 114 & 117). Itshould be noted that failure to observe the rules of theroad will result in penalizing traffic offenders asoutlined in paragraph 2.4.3.9.2.4.3.6 Accident and accident reportsIt is the duty of the driver to take certain steps in thisregard:(a)the vehicle should be stopped immediately;(b)the nature and extent of injury should be ascertained;(c)assistance should be rendered to the injured person;(d)the nature and extent of damage sustained should beascertained;61

(e) the following particulars should be furnished: name andaddress of driver, name and address of vehicle owner andthe registration mark;(f) the accident reporttwenty-four hours at ashould produce his/herdocument; andshould be completed withinpolice station and the driverdriver's licence and identity(g)no intoxicating liquor should be imbibed or a drug with anarcotic effect should be taken by the driver unless hehas complied with provisions in (f) above (South Africa,1989:Section 118(1».2.4.3.7 Reckless or negligent or inconsiderate driving anddriving while intoxicatedDrivers are not required to be reckless or negligent,inconsiderate and should not drive a motor vehicle while underthe influence of intoxicating liquor or drug having a narcoticeffect or with excessive amount of alcohol in blood (SouthAfrica, 1989:Sections 120-122).The blood alcohol concentration (BAC) should not exceed 0,08grams per one hundred millilitres. Persons are penalized forunauthorized acts in relation to vehicles; furnishing falseinformation: and unlawful acts in relation to registrationnumber, registration mark or certain documents (South Africa,1989:Sections 123-125).Traffic offenders are penalized as accounted for in paragraph2.4.3.9.62

2.4.3.8 PresumptionsFor purposes of penalization,which are accepted by the court as correct:there are certain presumptions(a)public road, freeway and public road in an urban area;(b) weight ascertained by means of a weigh-bridge;(c)weight of gross vehicle;(d)proof of gross weight of vehicle;(e)owner drove or parked a vehicle; and(f) traffic officers (South Africa, 1989: Sections 126-131).The Minister is authorized to make regulations and the localauthority is also authorized to make by-laws (South Africa,1989: sections 132 & 133).2.4.3.9 PenalizationPenalization of traffic offenders follows the violation ofroad traffic legislation:(a) a person convicted for passing a vehicle With~t due careand is intoxicated shall be liablei: a fine notexceeding Raooo or to imprisonment no exceeding twoyears or to both (South Africa, 1989:Sec ion 149(2).63

(b)A person who:* fails to comply with instructions or directions of atraffic officer or examiner of vehicles or inspectorof licences;* unlawfully issues or authorizes the issue of alearner's licence;* unlawfully issues or authorrzes the issue orendorses a driver's licence;* unlawfully issues or authorizes the issue of aroadworthy certificate or roadworthy certificatedisc;* removes a vehicle (in an urban area) where a personhas been killed and such removal must be authorizedby a traffic officer; and* unlawfully tampers with a vehicle or part thereofshall be liable to a fine not exceeding R4000 or toimprisonment not exceeding one(South Africa, 1989:Section 149(3»).year or to both(c) A person who killed another due to failure to stop thevehicle or failure to ascertain the nature and extent ofinjury or failure to render assistance shall be liable toa fine not exceeding R12000 or to imprisonment notexceeding three years or to both(South Africa,1989:Section 149(4) (a); 'South Africa, 1991:Section28(b)).64

(d) A person who damages any property or animal of anotherperson due to failure to observe his duties as a driverin event of accident shall be liable to a fine notexceeding R4000 or to imprisonment not exceeding one yearor to both (South Africa, 1989:Section 149(4».(e)A person involved in an accident and has failed to complywith procedure in event of accident shall be liable to afine not exceeding R2000 or to imprisonment not exceedingsix months or to both (South Africa, 1989:Section149(4)(C».(f)A person found guilty of reckless driving shall be liableto a fine not exceeding R8000 or to imprisonment notexceeding two years or to both (South Africa,1989:Section 149(5)(a».(g)A person convicted of negligent driving shall be liableto a fine not exceeding R4000 or to imprisonment notexceeding one year or to both (South Africa, 1989:Section149(5)(b» •(h) Penalization for any other traffic offence shall be afine not exceeding R2000 or to imprisonment not exceedingsix months or to both (South Africa, 1989:section149(6».(i)The magistrate's courts are competent to penalize trafficoffenders with any penalty provided for in the RoadTraffic Act (South Africa, 1989:Section 149(7».65

2.4.4 Road Traffic RegUlationsIt is necessary for the researcher to briefly highlight theregulations (in terms of the Road Traffic Act No. 29 of 1989)that are applied in penalizing traffic offenders in themagisterial district of Lower Umfolozi.Cooper (1990: 13) maintains that regUlations pertain to~registration and licensing of motor vehicl~s~ Theregistration and licensing of motor vehicles is effected inSouth Africa within each province: Natal, Transvaal, OrangeFree State and Cape of Good Hope. The following trafficregUlations are consolidated and are applicable to allprovinces:2.4.4.1 Fitness of driversDrivers should be the holders of learner's or driver'slicences and professional driving permits (Cooper,1990:339-371).2.4.4.2 Fitness of vehiclesThetesting stations shall .determine fitness of vehicles byissuing certificates of roadworthy,roadworthy disc;certificate of fitness, certificate of fitness disc; and theAdministrator is empowered to suspend or cancel a certificateof fitness and certificate of fitness disc (Cooper,1990:375:393). Motor vehicles should be equipped in respectof, inter alia, the following: brakes; lamps; retro-reflectorson certain vehicles; direction indicators; steering mechanism;hooter; windscreen and windscreen wipers; entrance and exit66

doors; tyres; exhaust silencers and pipes; safety belts;emergency warning signs (triangles); speedometers; etc(Cooper, 1990:397-467).Vehicles should conform to certain dimensions which will,inter alia, include: overall length; overhang of vehicle; andprojections of load (Cooper, 1990:467-473). Drivers of motorvehicles should observe the load on vehicles in respect of,inter alia, the following: weight of person and luggage;number of persons in relation to seating capacity; load ontyres; gross weight of vehicle; axle massload of vehicle withpneumatic tyres; etc (Cooper, 1990:475-481).2.4.4.3 Road traffic signs, speed limit and parking metersCooper (1990:515-575) opines that drivers should observe roadtraffic signs in relation to: purpose;classification, types(regulatory, warning informative, road markings), dimensionsand colours; manner in which they are displayed; illuminationor reflectorization and language used. The general speedlimit should not be exceeded (Cooper, 1990:575). The speedlimits are the same as those discussed in paragraph 2.4.1.4.A speed limit of 80 kmh shall apply to certain vehicles e.g.trucks, truck-tractors, articulated vehicles, etc (Cooper,1990:577) •2.4.4.4 Rules of the roadCooper (1990:579-583) opines that drivers should take heed ofthe diverse driving signals for the control of traffic.2.4.4.5 PenalizationXTraffic offenders are penalized as follows:---------------------67

(a) A fine not exceeding R8000 or imprisonment not exceedingtwo years or both shall apply to persons found guilty ofcontravening regulations pertaining to dimensions ofvehicles and loads on vehicles (Cooper, 1990:591).(b)A fine not exceeding R2000 or imprisonment not exceedingsix months shall apply to persons convicted ofcontravening any other road traffic regulation (Cooper,1990:591).2.5 SUMMARYRoad traffic legislation is universally viewed as an importantcornerstone of controlling the incidence, movement,fluctuation of traffic crimes and the penalization of trafficoffenders.Traffic legislation relate to traffic order,smooth and safe traffic flow. The objective andcomprehensive function of traffic legislation is to bringabout a state of equilibrium in traffic safety and todiscourage by means of penalization further commission oftraffic offences. Traffic legislation has unique problems.The justification for the existence of traffic legislation isquestioned on the grounds that it does not seem to be acceptedby the public or to be actually enforced. The rationale forthis is the old issue of whether traffic offences are reallycrimes and whether the traffic offenders should be penalizedor not.,The application of traffic legislation in this research iscontingent upon the implementation of the Road TrafficOrdinance No. 21 of 1966 and Regulations made in terms of theOrdinance and the Road Traffic Act No. 29 of 1989 andRegulations made in terms of the Act. Each province appliesits regulations in respect of registration and licensing of68

motor vehicles. The regulations are the same in relation tofitness of drivers; fitness of vehicles; road traffic signs;general speed limit; parking meters and the penalization oftraffic offenders.69

CHAPTER 3CLASSIFICATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENCES ANDTRAFFIC OFFENDERS3.1 INTRODUCTIONThe study of traffic crime is one of the most importantpursuits of research into the penalization of trafficoffenders in the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi.Traffic offences are inherently dramatic events. They causegreat harm and elicit a strong social response. Theclassification of traffic offences is the actual focal pointof the consideration of penalization of traffic offenders.Road users and the traffic officers contact, and perhapsconflict, with each other because they are both involved in ageneral traffic system containing a multitude of elements allinteracting with each other in highly complex ways.Traffic offences are classified as such in terms of specificjuridical requirements.Any traffic offence, no matter howtrivial, which is adjudicated in a criminal court isclassified as a criminal offence (Saunders & Wiechers,1984:3). The significance of the classification of trafficoffences and traffic offenders can be found in Chapter 6 inthe sphere of the penalization of traffic offenders.Logically, the penalty imposed on the driver who is penalizedfor committing a driving offence (for example, driving underthe influence of intoxicating liquor) should differconsiderably to that of a driver who is penalized forcommitting adocument offence (for example, driving a vehiclewithout a valid driver's licence).70

3.2 CLASSIFICATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENCES ,~Theclassification of traffic offences simply refers to thevarious patterns of traffic offending. The researcher hasarbitrarily dichotomized or classified traffic offencescommitted in the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi intothree discrete categories:* driving offences (speeding, drunken driving, etc.);* vehicle-related offences (defective tyres, brakes,lights, etc.); and* document offences (no valid driver's licence, expiredclearance certificate, etc). See attached contentanalysis (information) schedule for this arbitraryclassification (Annexure B).The classification of traffic offences is related to the wayin which they are defined. Van der WaIt (1982:35) definescrimes within the criminological framework as the violation offundamental social relationships. He distinguishes eight

(a) There are less serious traffic offences that are oftenclassified as transgressions of traffic legislation forstatistical purposes and which, in most instances, may besettled by payment of an admission of guilt fine and spotfine. Legal proceedings follow in the event of failureto pay admission of guilt or spot fine. Such trafficoffences include driving offences (parking offences, lessserious speeding offences, etc), vehicle-related offences(defective tyres, brakes, etc) and document offences(passenger overload, expired clearance certificate, etc).(b)There are also more serious traffic offences (also knownas "direct charges") where court appearance is generallycompulsory. This often includes, inter alia, drivingoffences such as culpable homicide following a motor caraccident, driving under the influence of alcohol, failingto stop after an accident as well as reckless and/ornegligent driving.Before considering the arbitrary classification of trafficoffences by the researcher, it is appropriate to brieflyhighlight other types of traffic offences.(a) Unconscious and conscious traffic offences ---.Dix & Layzell (1983:49-55) refer to certain aspects of traffic- offences committed unconsciously and consciously. It isessential to draw a distinction between conscious andunconscious traffic offending. This distinction which isfrequently recognized by traffic officers, has importantimplications for traffic law enforcement.can beA traffic offencecommitted unconsciously if the traffic offender doesnot know or is not familiar with the traffic legislation or isnot aware that the condition of his vehicle or documents or72

his behaviour on the road is contravening traffic legislation.It is therefore possible to refer to traffic offending throughignorance of traffic law-breaking (Dix & Layzell, 1983:50-51).The unconscious traffic crime commission cannot necessarily beconsidered less serious than conscious commission of trafficoffences.The identification of conscious and unconscious commission ofa traffic offence is not intended to imply that there is anylegal distinction between these classifications.Nevertheless, unconscious commission of traffic crimes havecertain implications for traffic law enforcement. Theimportance of the distinction lies in its implications for theeffectiveness of traffic law enforcement and relations betweentraffic officers and traffic offenders. In many situationsit is not easy for traffic officers to say whether a trafficoffence was committed consciously or unconsciously. Thisimplies that traffic officers will jUdge the traffic offenceitself or the attitude of the traffic offender. Conscioustraffic offending refers to instances where vehicle driversdeliberately and purposefully contravene traffic legislation.Many driving and vehicle-related offences, require certainphysical circumstances for them to be committed. Forinstance, the speed at which a driver travels along a publicroad will depend, inter alia, upon both the physicalcharacteristics of the road and upon the driver's perceptionof the risk inherent in these Characteristics•.~.(b)Consensus traffic offencesConsensus traffic offence commission applies to situations,usually confined to a certain public road or area, where aparticular traffic offence has become so rife that the trafficofficers no longer enforce it or are unable to enforce traffic73

legislation (Dix & Layzell, 1983:58-60). The possibilityexists that there might be consensus between vehicle driversand traffic law enforcement authorities. Speeding onparticular roads is a typical example of consensus trafficcrime commission.It is, therefore,commission evolves either as awhichapparent that consensus traffic crimeresponse to traffic regulationsboth drivers and_traffic ofl'icers believe areunreasonable or when the traffic officers consider that thereare goals other than traffic law enforcement which have higherpriority or other traffic offences which have a higherpriority. Consensus trafl'ic crime commission not onlyimplies that there is alarge number of traffic offenderscommitting the same traffic offence, but also that trafficofficers do not enforce the existing traffic legislati~ (Dix& Layzell, 1983:58). with other situations the possibilityexists that the decision not to intervene is actually taken by,senior traffic officers. Consensus traffic crime commissionmaysignal that certain traffic regulations are unrealistic(Dix & Layzell, 1983:59).One problem that can result fromconsensus traffic crime commission, however, is that trafficregulations as a whole may be brought into disrepute.(c)Schedule traffic offencesThe commission of schedule traffic offences occur whencommercial and professional drivers are compelled to committraffic offences in order to meet tight delivery schedules(Dix & Layzell, 1983:61-62).Traffic officers are tempted to blame tight delivery schedulesfor many traffic offences particularly driving offences suchas speeding and negligent and/or reckless driving. Dix &74

Layzell (1983:61-62) opine: "If it is the case that someemployers are tempted for commercial reasons to impose drivingschedules upon their employees which invite law-breaking, thenways should be sought to make such practices uneconomic.This raises a question of principle: whether or not employerscan be held responsible for the driving behaviour of theiremployees during working hours. It seems certain, however,that less restrictive schedules would result if, for example,both driver and employer were penalized for a motoring offencecommitted by an employee."There are literally numerous classifications of trafficoffences for which traffic offenders may be penalized. Forpurposes of this research it will suffice to deal with thearbitrary classification proposed by the researcher. Table3.1 shows the frequency distribution of traffic offences inthe magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi.TABLE 3.1 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENCES INTHE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI FORTHE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990CLASSIFICATION OFTRAFFIC OFFENCESFREQUENCY(N) (%)DRIVING OFFENCES 2641 41,42VEHICLE-RELATED OFFENCES 2400 37,62DOCUMENT OFFENCES 1338 20,96TOTAL * 6379 100,0075

*Table 3.1 shows that the total number of traffic offences hasexceeded 4771 traffic offenders penalized in the magisterialdistrict of Lower Umfolozi during the period 01 January 1990to 30 June 1990. The researcher ascribes the increase to thefact that there were instances where a traffic offendercommitted more than one" traffic offence and was penalizedaccordingly.Table 3.1 reveals that driving offences accounted for 2641(41,42%) of the total traffic offences and were the mosttraffic offences committed by drivers of motor vehicles.Vehicle-related offences were committed in 2400 (37,62%) ofthe total traffic offences. Document offences were the leasttraffic offences committed and they constituted 1338 (20,96%)of the total traffic offences recorded for the period underinvestigation.3.2.1 Driving offences .---The researcher identified fifty-nine driving offences (seeattached information Schedule-Annexure B). It is not theintention of the researcher to give a detailed account of allthe driving offences. It is therefore for this reason thatthe researcher will briefly. highlight driving offences whichhave been arbitrarily selected as serious in terms of the RoadTraffic Act (Act 29 of 1989), namely: speeding offences (SouthAfrica, 1989:Section 85): reckless and/or negligent driving(South Africa, 1989:Section 120): and driving under theinfluence of intoxicating liquor (South Africa, 1989:Section122) .Table 3.2 rendersdriving offences.has coll.apseda breakdown of the frequency distribution ofFor purposes of the tabl.e, the researcherother driving offences by having76

categories/types such as disregarding road traffic signs,disregarding road markings, disregarding rules of the road,etc.77

TABLE 3.2 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DRIVING OFFENCES INTHE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD OIJANUARY- 30 JUNE I990TYPE OF DRIVI!iG OFFENCEI'REQOElICY(H) (% )SPEEDING 1424 53,92RI:CK1l'SS AND/OR HEGLIGENT DRIVIHG 13 0,49DRIVING DHDER THE I1llWEIICE OF LIQOOR 70 2,65FAILURE TO WEAR SAFETY BELTS 266 10,07FAILURE TO GIVE TR!FYIC SIGlI!lS 152 5,75FAILURE TO REPORT !II ACCIDENT WHERE APERSOII HAS BEEN KILLED 1 0,04VEHIClE DRIVEllliI'mXl'I' C!iHER'S o:JlISENT 10 0,38.-DISREGARD ROAD TR!FYIC SIGHS 362 13,71-DISREGARD ROAD IIARKIHGS 85 3,22DISREGARD RULES OF THE ROAD 105 3,98PARKIHG OFFEHCES 122 4,62OTHER 31 1,17'!'OrAL 2641 100,0078

3.2.1.1.Speeding~There is a general speed limit in respect of a public roadother than afreeway, pUblic road outside an urban area and afreeway (South Africa, 1.989:Section 85 (1.) ) . cooper(1.990:575) points out that speed limits are 60 kmh in respectof a public road within an urban area, 1.00 kmh in respect of apublic road (other than a freeway) outside an urban area and120 kmh in respect of a freeway. The idea of fixing generalspeed limits is in line with speed zoning (Hand et al.1980:16). Speed zoning is a traffic engineering tool used toderive the best traffic service for a given set of conditions.General speed limits are applied to areas of high trafficcrime commission frequency attributable to excessive speeding.Speed zoning is used to establish general speed limits whichadhere to the principle of the basic speed law.Hand et al.(1980:16-17) state that: "No person shall drive a vehicle upona highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudenthaving due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, andthe surface and width of, the highway,and in no event at aspeed which endangers the safety of persons or property."Table 3.2 reveals that of all driving offences, speeding wasthe most prevalent offence and it constituted 1424 (53,92%)offences. Speeding was also coupled with other drivingoffences such as disregarding a red robot, failure to wear asafety belt, disregarding a stop sign, etc. Skogan (Jacob,1974:140) opines: "Speeding has become a menace far greaterthan that of carrying a concealed weapon ••• The death andinjury toll from this violation is far less than that causedby speeding. An auto driven by a careless or recklessspeeder is as dangerous to the community as a revolver in thehands of a burglar. It spells injury and death."79

3.2.1.2 Reckless and/or negligent drivingIt is often difficult to distinguish between reckless and/ornegligent driving. It is also difficult to distinguishbetween negligent and inconsiderate driving. Drivers ofmotor vehicles are expected to be considerate to other roadusers (South Africa, 1989:Section 121). Reckless and/ornegligent driving is more than mere negligence. It is anoffence to fail to perform because of car~lessness, oversightor failure to act in a manner common to a reasonable orprudent driver of a motor vehicle (Halnan & Spencer, 1982:248:Weston, 1978:57).The accused is guilty of reckless driving if he is driving thevehicle in such a manner as to create an obvious and seriousrisk of causing physical injury to some other person who mighthappen to be using the public road or of doing substantialdamage to property and in doing so he or she did so withouthaving given any thought to the possibility of there being anysuch risk. A reckless and/or negligent driver is a person~ho drives without any regard whatsoever of the safety ofother people or property (South Africa, 1989:Section 120(2».Such a driver is absolutely regardless as to whether he or shedoes damage or not (Du Plessis, 1981:6) • Table 3.2 showsthat reckless and/or negligent driving constituted 13 (0,49%)of the total driving offences.3.2.1.3 Driving under the influence of intoxicatingliquorWalls & Brownlie (1970:113) define drunken driving as follows:"Any person who, when driving or attempting to drive or whenin charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other pUblic placeis under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as80

to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle •..shall be guilty of an offence." Drunken driving is anoffence with one foot in the traffic law and one foot in thecriminal law. The legal history of driving under theinfluence of alcohol is marked by: " •..A protracted struggleto define scientifically a standard for intoxication and toprovide some objective evidentiary basis upon which todetermine guilt or innocence." (King & Tipperman, 1975:541).Traffic offenders are/were penalized for drunken driving ifthe alcohol concentration in blood exceed/exceeded a,08g per100 millilitres (South Africa, 1989:Section 122; Natal, 1966:section 140(1».It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the accuseddrove a vehicle with excess blood alcohol concentration.Alcohol passes readily through all membranes in the body andis absorbed directly into the blood stream. For chemicaltesting purposes, the amount of alcohol in the blood is calledbtood alcohol concentration (BAC). Blood alcoholconcentration is expressed in weight of alcohol per volume ofblood, that is, the weight of alcohol in grams per one hundredmillilitres of blood (schultz & Hunt, 1990:70).For thecertificate of analysis to be admissible as evidence, theprosecution must show that the sample of blood for thelaboratory was lawfully obtained. It is not necessary thatthe driver of a motor vehicle be drunk or intoxicated, as thelaw may merely provide that such driver shall be driving underthe influence of intoxicating liquor.has so far affected his/her nervous system,If intoxicating liquorbrain or musclesas to impair to an appreciable degree his/her ability tooperate the vehicle in a manner like that of an ordinaryprudent and cautious driver in full possession of his/hermental faculties, using reasonable care, then such driver isunder the influence of intoxicating liquor.81

The so-called "under the influence of alcohol" law expressionmay create evidentiary problems because the evidence of howthe accused driver walked, talked, smelled, and looked may notalways indicate that his condition was due to alcohol, or thatsuch condition indicates impaired driving ability. Driversoperating their vehicles in any manner which would raise adoubt as to their sobriety or other abnormal condition shouldbe stopped and the cause for the erratic driving ascertained.Deviations from normal driving may be due to alcoholconsumption (Whitlock, 1971:67). It is therefore essentialthat traffic officers in the magisterial district of LowerUmfolozi should be alert with regard to the appropriateexamples of erratic driving.A basic relationship exists between any alcohol concentrationin the blood and the amount in the brain. This implies thatthe degree of driver impairment due to alcohol effect isproportionate to the amount of alcohol in the brain. Theamount of alcohol in the blood depends also on the weight ofthe drinker (driver of motor vehicle charged with drunkendriving), the kind of alcohol imbibed, the time interval sincethe alcohol was drunk, and whether it was taken with orwithout food. Age, sex or previous driving experience maynot be a factor in an individual's response to alcohol.Weston (1978:88) opines: "On the average, researchers agreethat alcohol - even in small amounts - affects driving skills,and that driver performance deteriorates as more alcohol isconsumed. Deterioration is progressively and linearlyrelated to the BAC."The present approach in the ~outh African Law of Evidenceseems to be that the reliability and scientific acceptabilityof the breathalyzer are insufficient for purposes of provingbeyond reasonable doubt that a vehicle driver's blood alcohol82

concentration exceeded 0,08 grams per 100 millilitres ofblood. The breathalyzer is really only an "investigativetool" and serves a very limited purpose in the sense that theresults of such a test may furnish information upon which atraffic law enforcement officer may form a reasonablesuspicion of intoxication for purposes of an arrest. Thereare practical difficulties in forcing an unwilling driver toprovide a specimen of breath (Du Toit et al. 1991:3-14).Table 3.2 reveals that 70 (2,65%) traffic offenders werepenalized for driving under the influence of alcohol.TABLE 3.3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DRUNK TRAFFIC OFFENDERSACCORDING TO SEX IN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF LOWERUMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990FREQUENCYSEX OFOFFENDER(N) (%)MALE 68 97,14FEMALE 1 1,43UNKNOWN 1 1,43TOTAL 70 100,00Table 3.3 reveals that driving under the influence of alcoholwas an overwhelmingly male activity, namely 68 (97,14%) of thetraffic offenders were males, whilst 1 (1,43%) traffic83

offender was a female and 1 (1,43%) observation representedthe unknown sex category due to incomplete information in thecharge sheet.TABLE 3.4 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DRUNK TRAFFICOFFENDERS ACCORDING TO RACE IN THE MAGISTERIALDISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990FREQUENCYRACE OF OFFENDER(N) (% )BLACK 29 41,43WHITE 28 40,00ASIAN 10 14,29COLOURED 2 2,85UNKNOWN 1 1,43TOTAL 70 100,00Table 3.4 reveals that Blacks were in the majority,constituting 29 (41,43%); Whites 28 (40%); Asians 10 (14,29%);Coloureds 2 (2,85%) while 1 (1,43%) represented the instancewhere race was unknown due to incomplete information in courtrecords.84

Drivers of motor vehicles had specific BAC levels whilst therewere drivers whose BAC levels could not be ascertained due toincomplete information.TABLE 3.5FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF BAC LEVELS OF TRAFFICOFFENDERS IN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF LOWERm~FOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE1990HAC LEVELS IN GRAMS PER 100 MLFREQUENCY(N) (%)UNKNOWN 16 22,850,08 - 0,15 10 14,290,16 - 0,20 20 28,570,21 - 0,25 14 20,000,26 - 0,30 8 11,430,31 - 0,35 - -0,36 - 0,40 2 2,86TOTAL._ r'70 100,00It is apparent (table 3.5) that the majority of drunkendrivers with BAC levels ranging from 0,16 to 0,20g constitutes20 (28,57%) of the total drunk traffic offenders. Eight(11,43%) traffic offenders had the BAC levels ranging from85

0,26 to 0,30 grams. Traffic offenders penalized for BAClevels ranging from 0,08 - 0,15g constituted 10 (14,29%).Fourteen (20%) traffic offenders had their BAC levels rangingbetween 0,21 and 0,25g. There were only two (2,86%) trafficoffenders penalized for immoderate consumption of alcoholranging from 0,36 to 0,40 grams. In sixteen (22,85%) casesthe BAC levels are unknown due to incomplete information inthe charge sheets.Clark (1982:85)observed the following anticipated behaviourin respect of 2000 drinking drivers:"1. At 0.08 to around 0.15 blood alcohol concentration, theperson has a diminished sense for, or an appreciation offear. It appears that the frontal lobes of the brainhave become somewhat anesthetized and inhibitionsdefinitely lowered. The frontal lobes of the braincontrol our social restraints. At this level the driveris evidencing a rather apparent lack of mental controlover fear. without doubt, this level is the mostdangerous of all.driver.This is the high speed and reckless2. At approximately 0.18 .blood alcohol concentration, thedriver is developing problems with co-ordination ofwalking and is beginning to show the symptoms of a commondrunk. Slurred speech and stumbling over curbs arecommon observations at 0.18 to approximately 0.25. Atthis level, the driver's vision is narrowed, blurred, andmomentary. He or she will have difficulty in visuallyconcentrating on a given object.3. At approximately 0.30, the subject is beginning to have ahard time hearing as well as seeing.86

4. At 0.40, the average person is comatose or more simplystated, out cold .....Table 3.2 reveals that disregarding road traffic signsoccurred in 362 (13,71%) of the total driving offences. Theroad traffic signs disregarded are, inter alia, red robots;stop signs; no entry signs; no stop signs; etc. Trafficoffenders were also penalized for not wearing safety belts andthis occurred in 266 (10,07%) of the observations.Penalization for failure to give traffic signals is accountedfor in 152 (5,75%) of the total driving offences. parkingoffences were committed in 122 (4,62%) instances. Rules ofthe road were not obeyed in 105 (3,98%) of the drivingoffences. Road markings were disregarded in 85 (3,22%) ofthe total driving offences. The failure to report anaccident offence where a person has been killed was committedby one (0,04%) traffic offender. Other driving offencescommitted included, inter alia, insecure load on vehicle;failure to display emergency warning signs; making noise withexhaust brake; etc. and are accounted for in 31 (1,17%) cases.3.2.2 Vehicle-related offencesThe typology "vehicle-related offences" in the magisterialdistrict of Lower Umfolozi refers, in most instances, tovehicle defects. The detection of vehicle defects ispossible. It is, however, essential that experts, competentto examine vehicle defects should be attached to traffic lawenforcement units. Vehicle failure or vehicle-relatedoffences are generally grouped in relation to the major safetyequipment groups (Limpert, 1984:59). The researcher hasidentified 27 vehicle-related offences (see attached87

information Schedule - Annexure B). It is not the intentionof the researcher to give a detailed exposition of thevehicle-related offences.88

TABLE 3.6 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OFVEHICLE-RELATED OFFENCES IN THE MAGISTERIALDISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990TYPE OF VEHICLE-RELATED OFFEIICE(B)FREQOEIlCY(t)DEI'EC'l'IVE BRAKES 532 22,17DEFECTIVE TYRES 355 14,79DEI'EC'l'IVE STOPLIGHTS .!BD HEADliGHTS US 17,29DEI'EC'l'IVE STEERnlG 204 8,50DEFECTIVE DIRECTION INDICATORS 169 7,04VEHICLE !lOT EQUIPPED lIITH SAFETY BELTS, FIRE EXTIIIGUISHER; DEI'EC'l'IVEFIRE EXTI1IGUISl1ER 41 1,71II:l WARRIJiG TRIAIIGLES; II:l CIIEVROII AT REAR OF VEHICLE; PIJBl.IC VEHICLE UllTIDY 78 3,25FUEL (OILjDIFSEL) LEAKAGE 281 11,71.REGISTRATION MARKS IIO'f DISPLAYED; ILLEGIBLE CllIDOR OF ll1JMBER PLATES;REGISTRATIOlI MARKS 00SClJRED BY 'IUiBAR 138 5,75

Table 3.6 reveals that the majority of traffic offenders werepenalized for operating vehicles with defective brakes andthis constituted 532 (22,17%) of the total vehicle-relatedoffences. Defective stop lights and headlights occurred in415 (17,29%) instances. Drivers were also penalized foroperating vehicles with defective tyres and this isrepresented by 355 (14,79%) of the vehicle-related offences.It is revealed (table 3.6) that in certain vehicles there wasfuel leakage and penalization for this traffic offenceoccurred in 281 (11,71%) of the traffic cases. It is evidentthat 204 (8,50%) traffic offenders were penalized foroperating vehicles with defective steering mechanisms. Thesteering system of a motor vehicle produces forces betweentyres and road that guide the vehicle in the desired path andcontribute to the directional ability of the vehicle at highspeeds. It should therefore be noted that a good steeringmechanism provides the driver with a feeling of the roadwithout transmitting impact forces generated by roadroughness.functions,penalization.If the steering cannot perform these importantit becomes defective and therefore sUbject toVehicle-related offences also included defective directionindicators and this occurred in 169 (7,04%) instances.Certain vehicles were not equipped with safety belts, fireextinguishers and had defective fire extinguishers ­penalization occurred in 41 (1,71%) of the totalvehicle-related offences. In certain instances public motorvehicles were not kept clean, warning triangles not kept invehicles and some vehicles had no chevrons at the rear andthis is accounted for in 78 (3,25%) of the vehicle-relatedoffences. Traffic offenders were also penalized for: notdisplaying registration marks (number plates); to have numberplates obscured by towbar; to have illegible colour of number90

plates and penalization occurred in 138 (5,75%) of the totalvehicle-related offences. Table 3.6 also reveals that"other" vehicle-related offences constituted 187 (7,79%) ofthe total offences in this category. By the category "other"vehicle-related offences the researcher refers to, inter alia,no fuel cap; defective starter, hooter, exhaust, electricalw1rlng, speedometer, windscreen, siren fitted illegally, etc.which represent less serious violations of the RoadAct and Regulations.Traffic3.2.3 Document offencesDocument offences are so-called because the driver of a motorvehicle must produce relevant documentation which entitleshim/her to operate the vehicle. For example, a driver'slicence or a clearance certificate or a certificate of fitnessare documents which lawfully entitle the driver to operate thevehicle. The researcher identified 16 document offences(Annexure B). However, it is not the intention of theresearcher to give an exhaustive account of all documentoffences.91

TABLE 3.7 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OFDOCUMENT OFFENCES IN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTOF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY ­30 JUNE 1990TYPE OFDOCUMENT OFFENCEFREQUENCY(N) (%)NO DRIVER'S LICENCE, UNLICENSEDPERSON PERMITTED TO DRIVE 261 19,50FRAUD DRIVER'S LICENCE 9 0,67DRIVES WHILST UNDER SUSPENSION 10 0,75UNLICENSED MOTOR VEHICLE, CLEARANCECERTIFICATE NOT DISPLAYED 544 40,66NO *PDP, POP NOT IN VEHICLE 131 9,79NO *COF, COF NOT IN VEHICLE 128 9,57PASSENGER OVERLOAD 66 4,93GOODS VEHICLE OVERLOAD 120 8,96OTHER 69 5,17TOTAL 1338 100,00*PDP:*COF:PROFESSIONAL DRIVING PERMITCERTIFICATE OF FITNESS92

The motor vehicles which were unlicensed (clearancecertificate expired) and where clearance certificates were notdisplayed occurred in 544 (40,66%) of the total documentoffences. The driving of motor vehicles whilst undersuspension is accounted for in 10 (0,75%) of the documentoffences. The professional drivers (especially the driversof taxis) were penalized for passenger overload and thisoccurred in 66 (4,93%) of the cases. Penalization for goodsvehicle overload occurred in 120 (8,96%) of the total documentoffences. The instances where there were no professionaldriving permit or professional driving permit not kept invehicle is accounted for in 131 (9,79%) of the traffic cases.The category "other" document offences occurred in 69 (5,17%)of the cases and these, inter alia, included: no exemptionpermit for abnormal vehicles; failure to register a vehiclewithin 21 days; failure to renew licence; etc.The researcher has arbitrarily selected to briefly highlightfalsified (fraudulent) driver's licence as a serious documentoffence. Traffic officers have idea of how widespread thepractice of operating a vehicle without a valid driver'slicence may be in the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi.Possessors of forged or fraudulent driver's licences are amenace to every legitimate user of the public road. They cancommit traffic offences with impunity because of theirfraudulent licences. Hundreds of valuable time may be lostin searching for the holder of a fraudulent licence. Personslikely to have such licences are chronic traffic offendersoperating vehicles while their driver's licences aresuspended, underage youths who cannot obtain legitimatedrivers' licences, persons who cannot afford high insurancepremiums, persons with a language difficulty and discharged93

prisoners (even parolees) who cannot obtain driver's licences.Table 3.7 reveals that 9 (0,67%) of the total documentoffences were falsified (fraudulent) drivers' licences.The categories (table 3.7) no driver's licence, permittingunlicensed person to drive a vehicle and no certificate offitness, certificate of fitness not kept in vehicle occurredrespectively in 261 (19,50%) and 128 (9,57%) of the trafficcases.The researcher deems it fit to briefly highlight theposition of Natal Provincial Administration,based atEmpangeni, with regard to:* driver's licences;* learners' licenses;* certificates of fitness; and* certificates of roadworthiness.94

TABLE 3.8 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICANTS FORDRIVERS' LICENCES AT THE NATAL PROVINCIALADMINISTRATION IN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OFLOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30JUNE 1990APPLICANTS FOR DRIVERS' LICENCESFREQUENCY(N) (%)PASSED 426 16,02FAILED 2234 83,98TOTAL 2660 100,00Table 3.8 reveals that 2660 learner drivers were tested fordrivers' licences. Drivers' licences were issued to 426(16,02%) applicants, while 2234 (83,98%) applicants failed thedrivers' tests.The researcher is therefore of the opinion that it isproblematic for the community of the magisterial district ofLower Umfolozi to obtain drivers' licences. However, theresearcher does not imply that the examiners for drivers'licences should "dish out" licences for popularity.Theresearcher intended to briefly·highlight the applicants fordrivers' licences according to demographic variables such asrace, sex, etc., but the researcher had no access to suchinformation.95

TABLE 3.9 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICANTS FORLEARNERS' LICENCES AT THE NATAL PROVINCIALADMINISTRATION IN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OFLOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30JUNE 1990~ APPLICANTS FOR LEARNERS' LICENCESFREQUENCY(N) (%)PASSED 1656 32,73FAILED 3404 67,27TOTAL 5060 100,00Table 3.9 reveals that there were 5060 applicants forlearners' licences. Learners' licences were issued to 1656(32,73%) applicants, while 3404 (67,27%) applicants could notbe issued with learners' licences.,96

TABLE 3.10 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICATIONS FORCERTIFICATES OF FITNESS AT THE NATAL PROVINCIALADMINISTRATION IN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OFLOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30JUNE 1990VEHICLES TESTEDFREQUENCY(N) (%)PASSED 832 95,19FAILED 42 4,81TOTAL 874 100,00It is apparent that 832 (95,19%) applicants were issued withcertificates of fitness, while 42 (4,81%) applicants were notissued with certificates of fitness.97

TABLE 3.11 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICATIONS FORCERTIFICATES OF ROADWORTHINESS AT THE NATALPROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE MAGISTERIALDISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY.-30 JUNE 1990VEHICLES TESTEDFREQUENCY(N) (%)PASSED 1352 96,64FAILED 47 3,36TOTAL 1399 100,00Table 3.11 reveals that 1352 (96,64%) applicants had theirvehicles issued with certificates of roadworthiness, while 47(3,36%) applicants were not issued with certificates ofroadworthiness.3.3 CLASSIFICATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSThe classification of traffic offenders is appropriately basedon the commission of driving, vehicle-related and documentoffences. Logically, this classification, inter alia,include the following:98

3.3.1 Professional traffic offendersPeople who make their living out of driving should possessprofessional driving permits (South Africa, 1989:Section 41).Such persons are bus, taxi or truck drivers. There aresemi-professional drivers such as travellers who dependparticularly on their vehicles for their work. Trafficoffenders also belong to non-professional drivers: these areregular drivers such as commuters and occasional drivers.3.3.2 Classification according to behaviour and personalqualitiesTraffic offenders may be classified according to age, sex andrace. Bolhuis (Van der Westhuizen, 1982:127) maintains thatanother classification may be based on general attitude andbehaviour of traffic offenders. This attitude and behaviourinclude aspects such as aggressiveness, passiveness anddefensiveness.3.3.3 The unintentional, deliberate (intentional) and thesensory or physically defective traffic offendersThe unintentional (inadvertent) traffic offenders consist ofdrivers of motor vehicles who accidentally commit trafficoffences due to inadequate driving skill, lack of trafficknowledge and plain inattention while operating vehicles.Bolhuis (van der westhuizen, 1982:128) opines:"Although manyin this group normally voluntarily comply with traffic rUlesand regulations even in the absence of traffic law enforcement- there are quite a number of drivers who need the presence ofa traffic officer to make them toe the line." This category•includes interpersonal traffic offenders such as reckless99

and/or negligent offenders, inconsiderate traffic offenders,traffic offenders who overtake and who fail to yield topedestrian right of way within the pedestrian crossing.Deliberate £intentional> traffic offenders are drivers whowilfully disobey traffic laws and often take deliberatechances. Bolhuis (Van der Westhuizen, 1982:128) opines:"Drivers in this group need to be controlled by strict andcontinuous traffic law enforcement, and often, in spite ofthis, deliberately disobey traffic rules and regulations tosee if they can get away with it." Deliberate trafficoffenders include drivers who:* exceed the speed limit;* drive without valid drivers' licences;* disregard traffic signs;* fail to give traffic signals; and* drive under the influence of alcohol with a BAC in excessof O,08g per 100 millilitres of blood. Penalization oftraffic offenders is contingent upon the nature of thetraffic offence committed.Traffic offenders with sensory or physical defects formanother group who unintentionally may commit traffic offencesas a result of defect, for example, eye sight. Table 3.1reveals that, in the magisterial district of Lower umfolozi,most traffic offenders were penalized for committing drivingoffences and this occurred in 2641 (41,42%) traffic cases.100

It is therefore clear that inadvertent, deliberate, occasionaland chronic traffic offenders are a serious threat to trafficsafety.3.3.4 The defensive, occasional and chronic trafficoffendersDrivers may be placed into one of three main classes:* the defensive driver who seldom commits a trafficoffence;* the occasional traffic offender; and* the chronic traffic offender.The defensive driver obviously possesses sufficient drivingskill. By driving skill is meant a driver's capacity tomanipulate his vehicle under conditions imposed by moderntraffic (Cohen & Preston, 1968:32-35). Skill in drivingexhibits a wide range that which at best can only be describedas a clumsy and awkward performance and the superb proficiencyof the vehicle driver. JUdgement implies how the driverthinks he should or could do before actually undertaking aparticular movement. Skill and judgement work in harmony.The occasional traffic offender, in some thoughtless moment,may take a chance at beating the traffic light (red robot).This therefore implies that the occasional traffic offender isthe one who speeds along with no greater need than the factthat time was running out on dentist appointment or interviewfor a new job or perhaps the individual may be late for work101

or school. He or she does not normally drive this way, butcircumstances have caused the driver to modify his drivingbehaviour to meet the problem of tardiness.The chronic traffic offender is a socially maladjustedindividual who regards road traffic legislation as beingunworthy of his attention. He or she feels that trafficlegislation was made only for the other person and not toprovide guidelines for an orderly society. This driver,although he might have received numerous written notices(summonses), continues to violate traffic law, thus becoming amobile threat to the safety of other road users. The chronictraffic offender is the recidivist in relation to trafficcrimes.3.4 FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS TRAFFIC OFFENCESWhenone meditates upon the factors that contribute towardstraffic offences, it becomes evident that this is a diverseand complex problem. Although there is a definite linkbetween traffic offences and traffic accidents, the researcherdoes not intend discussing the causal aspects pertaining totraffic accidents. Traffic offences are a contributoryfaqtor to the majority of traffic accidents. There are",:--numerous reasons for committing traffic offences. Thetraffic offender may have different forms of rationalizationin order to justify traffic criminal behaviour. Byrationalizing the commission of a traffic offence, the trafficoffender can satisfy his need without bearing the blame.Rationalization is one of the most general and sociallyacceptable defence mechanisms to lessen anxiety. It isimportant that the traffic offender usually formulates theexplanations of hisfher behaviour after committing a trafficoffence and that the intensity with which this is done is an102

inverse proportion to its authenticity. It is usually thetraffic offender's faults or defects which they defend andexplain so minutely. An example is the learner driver (orthe individual who wishes to obtain a learner's licence) whowastes all hisfher time on entertainment,examination and then blames the instructorfails in his/herfor his/her poorteaching methods. Sometimes rationalization is called "thewindow dressing of motives and actions." Eventually this maycontribute towards committing document offences.However, when one undertakes an in-depth study at the factorsthat contribute towards traffic offences it would appear thatthe crux of the problem is the individual-human factors andthe prevailing environmental factors. Traffic crime is asocial phenomenon that occurs within the social situationbetween the individual-human factors and society (Cloete &Conradie, 1984:28). It should be noted that it is difficultto establish what role is played by heredity and aptitude incausing traffic crime.traffic crime would probably not occur.If it were not for these factors,There must be"something" in the road user's mind which incites him toviolate traffic laws. This "something" is a predispositionto commit traffic crime. The commission of traffic crime isnot contingent upon a predisposition alone. For example, anaggressive predisposition indicates the possibility ofcommitting certain traffic offences. The method ofprocessing (mode of thinking) plays an important role in thecommission of traffic offences.It is appropriate to referto resigned method of processing (Cloete & Conradie,1984:28-29). Resigned processing is not unusual, though itmust be pointed out that the acceptance of traffic lawenforcement authority can probably be thrown overboard when103

the opportunity presents itself to do so unobstructively orwithout being apprehended, for example, when a trafficoffender exceeds the speed limit.. The environment creates the conducive atmosphere to committraffic offences. The individual-human factors possessspecial qualities that contribute towards traffic offences.The processing orientation will differ from driver to driver.Cloete & Conradie (1984:29) opine: "The significance of theindividual-human factors is that not all persons who aresubjected to unfavourable environmental circumstances resortto criminal behaviour, whilst favourable environmentalcircumstances as such do not guarantee that all persons whoare exposed to them will be exempt from crime". Hereditaryfactors are basic to the question whether a road user willcommit a traffic crime or not whilst environmental factorsdetermine the type of traffic offence that will be committed.The interaction between individual-human and environmentalfactors contribute towards creating a unique personality ofthe traffic offender. within the personality, what isinherent (heredity) and what is acquired merge into a unitcalled the individuality (uniqueness) of personality (Cronj~,1982:20-2n. A characteristic of this personality is theability to resist. This resistance determines the way inwhich the road user reacts towards the traffic situation.The resistance also fluctuates between two extremes. Interms of social (outer) and individual-human (inner) factorsevery road user responds in a way Which is peculiar to himselfor herself. This implies that the road user moves betweenmaximum and minimum resistance. If, in terms of theenvironmental or individual-human factors, the road user maymove to a point below the minimum resistance, he or she willthen commit a traffic offence.104

3.5 SUMMARYThis chapter presented the classification of traffic offencesand traffic offenders. Traffic offences fall into threediscrete categories:* driving offences;* vehicle-related offences; and* document offences.There are also other patterns of traffic offending: conscious,unconscious, consensus and schedule traffic offences.Traffic offenders are classified into various categories.The classes of traffic offenders discussed in this chapterinclude professional traffic offenders; classificationaccording to behaviour and personal qualities; theunintentional, deliberate and traffic offenders with physicaldefects. The inadvertent and deliberate traffic offendersare a serious threat to the traffic safety. The factors thatplay a role in causing traffic crimes are diverse and complex.The most important factors that contribute towards trafficoffences are individual-human (inner) and the prevailingsocial or environmental (outer) factors.105

CHAPTER 4TRAFFIC OFFENDERS AND TRAFFIC OFFENCES4.1 INTRODUCTIONThe objective of this chapter is to examine the relationshipand correlations between traffic offenders,and other related demographic variables.traffic offencesIt is the far moremodest approach to present some frequency distributions toshow how traffic criminality is spread over the differentdemographic variables such as age, sex, race, occupation andecological distribution.In the analysis and determinationof relationships between different demographic variables, theresearcher will also discuss certain characteristics oftraffic dynamics.Traffic dynamics involve traffic offenders' actual experienceswhile operating motor vehicles. Traffic dynamics that willbe discussed include the incidence, how the traffic offencescame to be known, types of vehicles involved, the dates andtimes of traffic offences.4.2 HOW THE TRAFFIC OFFENCES CAME TO BE KNOWNTraffic offences are known through the activities 0\ trafficofficers. Iannone (1975:1) describes the role of the trafficofficer in traffic law enforcement: "In the law enforcementagency, he is of special importance becaUse of the great needfor teamwork. Upon him rests most of the responsibility forproviding the cohesive force which welds the working force(106

into a well-functioning. smoothly operating unit." Thebiggest single factor in the uncovering of traffic offences isthe visible traffic officer and police unit on patrol.Figure 4.1 shows that there are five stages/steps in theapprehension of traffic offenders in the magisterial districtof Lower Umfolozi.107

Figure 4.1 STAGES IN THE APPREHENSION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSSTAGE I: OBSERVATION/SURVEI LLANCETRAFFIC OFFICERSON PATROLSTAGE 2:INTERCEPTIONITRAFFIC OFFICER'S DECI-SION TO STOP THE MOTORVEHICLE DRIVERI,STAGE 3: ASSESSMENTINTERACTION BETWEEN TRAFFIC OFFICERAND DRIVER INVOLVING DOCUMENT ORVEHICLE CHECK, QUESTIONING, ETC.ITRAFFIC OFFICER'S DECISION AS TO:STAGE 4: ACTION* NO TRAFFIC OFFENCE COMMITTED (NOACTION)* VERBAL WARNING* CHARGE THE TRAFFIC OFFENDER BYISSUING WRITTEN NOTICES AND SPOTFINE CITATIONSISTAGE 5: PENALIZATIONCOURT PROCEEDINGS;* ADMISSION OF GUILT* COURT APPEARANCE108

Traffic offences are known on the basis of either an accidentor charged (apprehension) by traffic officers. In thisresearch the majority of traffic offenders were stopped andcharged by traffic officers. The notion of how the trafficoffences came to be known refers to the possible. stages in theprocess of apprehending a traffic offender (Weston,1978:135-138). Traffic officers on duty enforce traffic lawswith the view to observe the behaviour of road users andcondition of motor vehicles. This observation leads tosurveillance. Surveillance is contingent upon traffic flow.If there is suspicion of violating the road trafficlegislation, the traffic officer then decides to stop themotor vehicle driver.traffic officer.This implies interception by theObservation, surveillance and interception is followed byassessment of the traffic situation by the traffic officer.Assessment takes place at the roadside encounter. Roadsideencounter include, inter alia, the following procedures:(a)traffic officers' approach;(b)drivers' reaction; and(c) development of discussion between traffic officers andmotor vehicle drivers. The development of discussioninclude aspects such as inspection of documentation,questioning and broadening of questions, examination ofmotor vehicles with the view to ascertain defects invehicles, etc.The traffic officer will then decide to take action. Thismight imply no further action which ultimately means that notraffic offence or a less serious offence has been committedand the driver may be verbally warned. In this case the109

motor vehicle driver will leave the traffic crime scene. Ifa traffic officer is satisfied that a traffic offence has beencommitted, he issues the traffic offender with a writtennotice (Annexure C) which contains, inter alia, the followingparticulars: name, address, age, sex, race, occupation, typeof vehicle involved and its registration number, type ofoffence committed, section of Road Traffic Act violated, theamount of fine imposed, etc. Parking offences and others donot involve direct contact with traffic officers. spot finecitations (Annexure D) are usually issued in respect oftraffic offences which do not involve direct contact withtraffic officers (such as camera supervision). The mostserious traffic offences such as drunken driving and recklessand/or negligent driving involve extra stages. These extrastages inclUde arrest and detention, court proceedings whichinclude appearance before a jUdicial officer and ultimatelyacquittal if not guilty or penalization if found guilty.4.3 INCIDENCEThe total number of traffic offenders analysed for the periodunder investigation amounted to 4771, distributed among threepolice stations in the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi.For policing purposes, the magisterial district of LowerUmfolozi is divided into three police stations, each centredupon three towns, namely Empangeni, Richards Bay andKwaMbonambi (table 4.1). For traffic law enforcementpurposes, the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi isdivided into three traffic law enforcement organizations:Empangeni municipality traffic department, Richards Bay towncouncil's traffic department and the Natal ProvincialAdministration (based at Empangeni) traffic department. Theactivities of these traffic law enforcement organizations willbe discussed in chapter 5. The 4771 traffic cases were110

distributed among the three police stations via the threetraffic control organizations. It is the intention of theresearcher to stress that this was the total number of trafficcases that were physically observed for the period 01 January1990 to 30 June 1990. The chronological basis for inclusionof these traffic cases wastraffic offences.were unknown (table 4.1).the date of the commission ofIn certain instances the police stationsThese were traffic cases where theresearcher obtained data from the criminal record book.researcher, therefore, arbitrarily decided to use the date oftrial of traffic offenders to represent the date of commissionof traffic offences.TheTABLE 4.1 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDING TOPOLICE STATIONS FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990POLICE STATIONFREQUENCY(N) (%)EMPANGENI 1659 34,77.RICHARDS BAY 2367 49,61KWAMBONAMBI 98 2,06UNKNOWN 647 13,56TOTAL 4771 100,00111

FIGURE 4.2DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENDERS ACCORDING TO POUCE STATiONSEmpangeniRichards Bay112

Table 4.1 reveals that Richards Bay police station (via theRichards Bay town council's traffic department) apprehendedmore traffic offenders and these traffic cases constituted2367 (49,61%) of the total observations. The Empangenipolice station dealt with 1659 (34,77%) traffic offenders,while 98 (2,06%) traffic offenders were apprehended byKwaMbonambi police station. The instances where policestations were unknown are accounted for in 647 (13,56%) of thetotal observed cases. Figure 4.2 represents a graphicaldistribution of traffic offenders according to three policestations.Table 4.2 renders a breakdown of the distribution of threecategories of traffic offences (See chapter 3) according tothe police stations. Figure 4.3 renders a proportionalvertical bar graph distribution of the data contained in table4.2.113

TABLE 4.2BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO POLICE STATIONS FOR THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990TYPE OF OFI'EIICEroLICE STATIOII DRIVIIIG OFFEllCE VEHICLE-RELATED IXX:OOHT MALOFFEllCEOFFENCE(I) (t) (I) (t) (I) m (I) (t)OO'AIIGEliI 732 27,72 957 39,88 500 37,37 2189 34,32RICHARDS BAY 1615 61,15 716 29,83 604 45,14 2935 46,00KliAMllOllAMBI 30 1,14 77 3,21 46 3,44 153 2,40lJIII(lfOOI 264 9,99 650 27,08 188 14,05 1102 17,28MAL 2641 100,00 2400 100,00 1338 100,00 *6379 100,00114

- .~_...-FIGURE 4.3TRAFFIC OFFENCESACCORDING TO POLICE STATIONS2000NUMBER15000FTRAF 1000FIC0FFENCES5000Emp. RB. KwM. UC.POLICE STATIONSOffences_ Driving _ Vehicle-Related 1>4 Document£mp. :: £mpongeni RB. = Richards BayKwlJ. = KwaMbonambi ue.:= Unknown Cases115

*The researcher analysed 4771 traffic offenders. Table 4.2shows that a total of 6379 traffic offences were committed bytraffic offenders. The researcher ascribes the higher numberof traffic offences to the fact that there were trafficoffenders who committed more than one traffic offence.Table 4.2 reveals that Richards Bay police station dealt with1615 (61,15%) driving offences, while 732 (27,72%) constituteddriving offences which were handled by Empangeni policestation. KwaMbonambi dealt with the least driving offencesand these offences are accounted for in 30 cases (1,14%) ofthe total driving offences.offences is represented by 264The unknown category of driving(9,99%) of the cases.The Empangeni police station dealt with the greatest number ofthe vehicle-related offences and these offences constituted957 (39,88%) of the cases. A total of 716 (29,83%)vehicle-related offences were handled by Richards Bay policestation, while KwaMbonambi police station dealt with 77(3,21%) vehicle-related offences. Unknown cases accountedfor 650(27,08%) vehicle-related offences.A total of 604 (45,14%) document offences were dealt with byRichards Bay police station, while 500 (37,37%) constituteddocument offences handled by Empangeni police station.KwaMbonambi police station dealt with the least documentoffences and these are accounted for in 46 (3,44%) of allcases. In instances where the police stations were unknown,the number of document offences committed was 188 (14,05%) ofthe cases.Table 4.2 reveals that the greatest number of traffic offenceswere dealt with by Richards Bay police station and theseoffences are accounted for in 2935 (46,00%) of the total116

traffic offences, while 2189 (34,32%) offences were handled byEmpangeni police station. It is also evident thatKwaMbonambi police station dealt with the least number oftraffic offences and these offences constituted 153 (2,40%) ofthe cases. Unknown cases accounted for 1102 (17,28%) trafficoffences.4.4 TYPES OF VEHICLES INVOLVEDTable 4.3 presents the distribution of the different types ofvehicles driven by 4771 traffic offenders. Figure 4.4portrays a vertical bar graph distribution of the datacontained in table 4.3.117

TABLE 4.3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES OF VEHICLESINVOLVED IN TRAFFIC CRIME COMMISSION DURING THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990TYPES OF VEHICLES INVOLVEDFREQUENCY(N) (%)MOTORCYCLES 168 3,52PRIVATE VEHICLES 2597 54,43PUBLIC MOTOR VEHICLES(TAXIS,BUSES) 590 12,37GOODS (DELIVERY) VEHICLES 479 10,04OTHER VEHICLES (TRACTORS,CARAVANS, CRANES, TRAILERS,PAYLOADERS, ETC) 157 3,29UNKNOWN 780 16,35TOTAL 4771 100,00118

FIGURE 4.4TYPES OF VEHICLES INVOLVEDIN TRAFFIC OFFENCES3000NUM 2500BER0F 2000TRAF 1500 FIC0F 1000FEN0E500RSoM p L G o uTYPES OF VEHICLESu ~ UafarcyclesL ;= Public Vehicleso = Other VehiclesP =- Private VehicleG = Goods Vehicls$U =- Unknown Cases119

It appears (table 4.3) that the drivers of private motorvehicles were the main traffic offenders and are accounted forin 2597 (54,43%) of the total traffic cases. Motor vehicledrivers were penalized for violating traffic legislation andthe types of vehicles involved included 590 (12,37%) pUblicmotor vehicles; 479 (10,04%) goods vehicles; 168 (3,52%)motorcycles; and 157 (3,29%) other vehicles which included,inter alia, tractors, caravans, payloaders, etc.There were,however, 780 (16,35%) drivers of motor vehicles penalized foroperating unknown types of ~ vehicles, ~ due to incompleteinformation in records.Drivers of public motor vehicles and goods vehicles provided asteady proportion of traffic offenders (table 4.3). Thistrend could be ascribed to the notion that the livelihood ofthese professional drivers is contingent upon their drivers'licences and this might encourage them to refrain fromcommitting traffic offences.4.5DATES AND TIMES OF TRAFFIC OFFENCES4.5.1Month of traffic offence commissionTable 4.4 shows the months during which 4771 traffic offenderscommitted traffic offences over the six-month period underinvestigation. Figure 4.5 portrays the temporal distributionof the six-month period in which traffic offenders violatedtraffic rules and regulations.120

TABLE 4.4 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSACCORDING TO THE MONTH OF TRAFFIC OFFENCECOMMISSION FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE1990MONTHS OF TRAFFIC OFFENCE COMMISSIONFREQUENCY(N) (%)JANUARY 875 18,34FEBRUARY 646 13,54MARCH 628 13,16APRIL 708 14,84MAY 495 10,38JUNE 760 15,93UNKNOWN 659 13,81TOTAL 4771 100,00121

FIGURE 4.5TRAFFIC OFFENDERSOVER A SIX-MONTH PERIOD1000NUMB 800ER0FT 600RAFFIC4000FFENDE 200RSoJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun UnkMONTHS OF THE YEARUnk :: Unknown Cases122

Table 4.4 reveals that January was the most active monthduring which the majority of traffic offenders wereapprehended by traffic officers. A total of 875 (18,34%)motor vehicle drivers were penalized during this month.The question of January being the most active month could beascribed to the notion that there were more motor vehicledrivers due to New Year's day, the re-opening of schools andthe resumption of work by the public. These factors probablycontributed substantially to the high density of traffic. InJune, penalization was meted out in respect of 760 (15,93%)traffic offenders, while 708 (14,84%) motor vehicle driversviolated traffic laws in April. February produced 646(13,54%) traffic cases; 628 (13,16%) motor vehicle driverscommitted traffic offences in March, while 495 (10,38%)traffic offenders were penalized in May. Drivers of motorvehicles penalized for committing traffic offences duringunknown months are accounted for in 659 (13,81%) of the totaltraffic cases.Table 4.5 renders abreakdown of the distribution of trafficoffences according to month of commission. Figure 4.6represents a polygon indicating the temporal distribution ofthe month in which three different types of traffic offenceswere committed from January - June 1990.123

TABLE 4.5 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO MONTH OF COMMISSION FORTHE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990TYPE OF OFFEllCEIKJliTIl OF TRAFFICOFFEllCE DRIVIJIG OFFEllCE VEBICLE-REL!TED 00CIlIIENT TOTALa»DIISSIOII OFFEllCE OFFEIICE(I) (% ) (H) (%) (I) (% ) (I) (% )J!llUARY 585 22,15 524 21,83 219 16,36 1328 20,82FEBRUARY 33l 12,53 346 14,42 209 15,62 886 13,89HARCll 392 14,84 246 10,25 160 11,96 798 12,51.APRIL 451 17,09 472 19,66 230 17,19 1153 18,07MAY 243 9,20 212 8,83 151 11,29 606 9,51JOKE 421 15,94 279 11,63 192 14,35 892 13,98.llIiKJOiII 218 8,25 321 13,38 177 13,23 716 11,22TOTAL 2641 100,00 2400 100,00 1338 100,00 6379 100,00124

FIGURE 4.6DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENCESCOMMITTED OVER A SIX-MONTH PERIOD700 --,--------------------------,NUM 600BERoF------_._--------------_.__._---500 --t-';-\----.------------.----.-.-------.--.-.------,T 400 +------"c----- ---f-.---->t--------/.R :A :F :F 300 -------'-'." ,:I ,c'-.+,, ,,~'-, ,,-+---~*. \ '"~ 200 +====~""_="----- ...."7-..:::.....~ •••:::::O .••~~+t-_---~-----F ---'-•..•..*... . *./ ---. ..---.E~ 100 +---­ESO-+-----r---,---,..-----r---,-----jJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun UnkMONTHSOffences~ Driving ..+. Vehicle-Related """"*- DocumentUnk == Unknown125

Driving offences were mostly committed in January and theseoffences constituted 585 (22,15%) of the total drivingoffences. In April 451 (17,09%) driving offences werecommitted, while 421 (15,94%) represent offences committed inJune. Driving offences committed in March constituted 392(14,84%) of the cases. A total of 331 (12,53%) drivingoffences were committed in February, while 243 (9,20%) drivingoffences occurred during May. The unknown months of trafficoffence commission is accounted for in 218 (8,25%) of thetotal cases of driving offences.Table 4.5 further reveals that January produced 524 (21,83%)vehicle-related offences. A total of 472 (19,66%) vehicledefects were identified during April, while 346 (14,42%)vehicle-related offences were committed during February.June produced 279 (11,63%) vehicle-related offences.Penalization for operating defective vehicles during Marchoccurred in 246 (10,25%) of the cases, while 212 (8,83%)represented vehicle-related offences committed in May. Atotal of 321 (13,38%) vehicle-related offences were committedduring unknown months.Document offences were mostly committed in April and theseoffences are accounted for in 230 (17,19%) of the totaldocument offences, while January produced 219 (16,36%)document offences. There were 209 (15,62%) document offencescommitted during February. A total of 192 (14,35%) werecommitted in June, while 160 (11,96%) represent documentoffenCes committed during March. May produced 151 (11,29%)document offences. Document offences committed duringunknown months are accounted for" in 177 (13,23%) of the cases.126

An overall picture (table 4.5) is that a total of 1328(20,82%) traffic offences were committed during January.April produced 1153 (18,07%) traffic offences. In Junealtogether 892 (13,98%) traffic offences were committed, while886 (13,89%) represent offences committed during February. Atotal of 798 (12,51%) traffic offences occurred in March.Penalization in May was meted out in respect of 606 (9,51%)traffic offences. It is apparent (table 4.5) that 716(11,22%) traffic offences were committed during unknown months(due to incomplete information from court records).4.5.2 Day of traffic offence commissionTable 4.6 presents the distribution of traffic offendersterms of the day of traffic offence commission. Figure 4.7offers a histogram depiction of 4771 traffic offenderspenalized according to the days of the week from January ­June 1990.in127

TABLE 4.6 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSACCORDING TO DAY OF TRAFFIC OFFENCE COMMISSIONFOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990DAYOF TRAFFIC OFFENCECOMMISSIONFREQUENCY(N) (%)MONDAY 635 13,31TUESDAY 841 17,63WEDNESDAY 766 16,05THURSDAY 623 13,06FRIDAY 641 13,44SATURDAY 503 10,54SUNDAY 103 2,16UNKNOWN 659 13,81TOTAL 4771 100,00128

FIGURE 4.7TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDINGTO DAYS OF THE WEEK1000NUM800 BER0FT 600RAFFIC4000FF£N0E 200RSoMon lues Wed lhur Fri Sat Sun UnkDAYS OF THE WEEKUnk = Unknown Cases129

Table 4.6 reveals that Tuesdays produced 841(17,63%) trafficoffenders, while 766 (16,05%) represent motor vehicle driversapprehended for violating traffic legislation on Wednesdays.A total of 641 (13,44%) traffic offenders were penalized forcommitting traffic offences on Fridays. Traffic offencescommitted on Mondays are accounted for in 635 (13,31%) of thetraffic cases. It should be noted that Good Friday andEaster Monday (during April) were pUblic holidays which alsocontributed sUbstantially to the incidence of trafficoffences.Thursdays produced 623 (13,06%) traffic cases. A total of503 (10,54%) traffic offenders were penalized for committingtraffic offences on Saturdays, while 103 (2,16%) were motorvehicle drivers apprehended for violating traffic laws onSundays. six hundred and fifty-nine (13,81%) trafficoffenders also committed traffic offences during days UNKNOWNto the researcher as a result of incomplete informationobtained from court statistics.Table 4.7 renders a breakdown of distribution of trafficoffences according day of traffic offence commission.Likewise, a graphical distribution of traffic offencesaccording to the days on which offences were committed, isdepicted in figure 4.8 by means of proportional vertical bargraph.130

TABLE 4.7 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO DAY OF TRAFFIC OFFENCECOMMISSION FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE1990TYPE OF OFFElICRDAY OF 'l'RAFFICOFFEllCE rollIIS- DRIVIIlG OFFEIICE VEHICLE-RELATED IOOJM!llT TOTAL51011 OFFEIICE OFFENCE(H) (%) (H) (%) (H) (%1 (H) (%1IIlBlJAY 387 14,65 4ll 17,12 m 16,% 1025 16,07'I'llESDAY 545 20,64 427 17,79 257 19,21 1229 19,27WEDBESDAY 480 18,17 264 ll,OO 246 18,39 990 15,52TIIIJ\lSl)AY 282 10,68 315 13,13 206 15,40 803 12,59FRIDAY 416 15,75 224 9,33 m 9,87 772 12,10SATllRDAY 308 ll,66 240 10,00 107 7,99 655 10,27SUHDAY 34 1,29 142 5,92 32 2,39 208 3,26UlIlOOiIf 189 7,16 377 15,71 131 9,79 697 10,92TO'l'AL 2641 100,00 2400 100,00 1338 100,00 6379 100,00131

FIGURE 4.8TRAFFIC OFFENCESACCORDING TO DAYS OF THE WEEK600NUMB 500ER0 400 FTRA F 300FIC2000FFEN 100cESoMon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun UnkDAYS OF THE WEEKOffences_ Driving _ Vehicle-Related 1::1 DocumentUnk = Unknown132

Table 4.7 reveals that Tuesdays were the peak days for alltraffic offences: driving offences were committed in 545(20,64%) of the cases, vehicle-related offences constituted427 (17,79%) of the offences, while 257 (19,21%) represent thedocument offences that were committed. Driving offencescommitted on Wednesdays are accounted for in 480 (18,17%) ofthe cases. Fridays produced 416 (15,75%) driving offences.The commission of driving offences occurred on Mondays in 387(14,65%) of the cases. A total of 308 (11,66%) were drivingoffences committed on Saturdays. Penalization was meted outin respect of 282 (10,68%) driving offences committed onThursdays. Thirty-four (1,29%) driving offences occurred onSundays, While 189 (7,16%) represent driving offencescommitted during unknown days.Mondays were second in respect of vehicle-related offencescommitted and these offences constituted altogether 411(17,12%) of the cases, while Wednesdays produced 264 (11,00%)vehicle-related offences. Drivers of motor vehicles werepenalized in respect of 315 (13,13%) the vehicle-relatedoffences which were committed on Thursdays. The commissionof vehicle-related offences also occurred on Saturdays andthis is accounted for in 240 (10,00%) of the cases. sundaysproduced the least vehicle-related offences and these offencesconstituted 142 (5,92%) of the traffic cases. A total of 377(15,71%) vehicle-related offences were committed duringunknown days.Document offences committed on Wednesdays constituted 246(18,39%), While 227 (16,96%) document offences occurred onMondays. It is also evident (table 4.7) that documentoffences committed on Thursdays are accounted for in 206(15,40%) of the cases. The commission of document offenceson Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays are respectively accounted133

for in 132 (9,87%), 107 (7,99%) and 32 (2,39%) of theoffences. Document offences which were committed duringunknown days constituted 131 (9,79%) of the cases.Table 4.7 reveals that Tuesdays were the peak days for alltraffic offences and these offences are accounted for in 1229(19,27%) of the total traffic offences. Mondays produced 1025(16,07%) traffic offences. Penalization was meted out inrespect of traffic offences committed on Wednesdays,Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays and this isaccounted for respectively in 990 (15,52%), 803 (12,59%), 772(12,10%), 655 (10,27%) and 203 (3,26%) of all trafficoffences.Traffic offence commission during unknown days isaccounted for in 697 (10,92%) of the total traffic offences.4.5.3 Time of traffic offence commissionIt is likely that there will be favourite times for each typeof traffic offence. Temperature might induce a directpsychological or physiological response in motor vehicledrivers, especially in the form of road traffic aggression.There is the notion that temperature affects trafficaggression indirectly, through an effect on some aspect ofsocial behaviour which in turn affects the level of trafficcrime (Field, 1992:340).134

TABLE 4.8 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSACCORDING TO TIME OF TRAFFIC OFFENCE COMMISSIONFOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990~ -TIME OF TRAFFIC OFFENCEFREQUENCY-(N) (%)EARLY MORNING(OOHOO - 07H59) 342 7,17DAYTIME(08HOO - 15H59) 1333 27,94LATE AFTERNOON(16HOO - 17H59) 454 9,52EARLYEVENING(18HOO - 21H59) 411 8,61LATE NIGHT(22HOO - 24HOO) 1 0,02UNKNOWN 2230 46,74TOTAL 4771 100,00135

FIGURE 4.9TRAFFIC OFFENDERSACCORDING TO TIMES OF THE DAYN 2500uMBER 20000FT ._----R 1500AFFIC 10000FFEN 5000ERSoEMDTLAEVLNUNKTIME OF THE DAY_ Series 1 IEM=Eorly MorningLA=Late Aftc-moonLN=Lote flightDT=Doy TimeEV=Eorly EveningUnk=Unknown136

Table 4.8 reveals that daytime wasthe most active time forthe commission of traffic offences. Daytime produced 1333(27,94%) traffic offenders. A total 454 (9,52%) trafficoffenders were apprehended during the late afternoon.Traffic offences were committed during the early evening by411 (8,61%) motor vehicle drivers, while 342 (7,17%) trafficoffenders were penalized for violating traffic legislationduring the early morning. There was only one (0,02%) motorvehicle driver who committed a traffic crime during the latenight.Traffic offenders were also penalized for committingoffences during unknown times. The unknown times produced2230 (46,74%) traffic offenders.Table 4.9 renders a breakdown of traffic offencestime of commission. Figure 4.10 reflectsdistribution of the data contained in table 4.9.according toagraphical137

TABLE 4.9 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO TIME OF COMMISSION FORTHE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990TYPEOFOI'FE!iCETIJlE OF '!'RAFFleOFFEIICE

FIGURE 4.10TRAFFIC OFFENCESACCORDING TO TIMES OF THE DAY1400NUMB 1200ER0 1000FTR800AFF600IC0F400FEN 200cES0EM DT LA EV LN UNKTIME OF THE DAYOffences_ Driving _ Vehicle-Related n:::/I DocumentE!.I=Early !.IomingLA=Late AfternoonLN=Late NightDT=Day TimeEV=Early EveningUnk=Unknown139

Table 4.9 reveals that the peak time for the driving offencesin which the time of commission was recorded was during thedaytime and this time produced 728 (27,57%) driving offences.A total of 343 (12,99%) driving offences were committed duringlate afternoon. The early morning rush hours between OOhOOand 07h59 produced 247 (9,35%) driving offences, while 179(6,77%) represent driving offences which occurred during theearly evening. The number of driving offences then taperedoff until late night and the quietest time of all was duringlate night (22hOO - 24hOO). Driving offences committedduring unknown time constituted 1144 (43,32%) of the cases.It is apparent from table 4.9 that a total of 525 (21,87%)vehicle-related offences were committed during daytime. Thecommission of vehicle-related offences during late afternoonis accounted for in 218(9,09%) of the cases, While the earlyevening produced a significant lesser amount ofvehicle-related offences namely 195 (8,13%).There were only161 (6,70%) instances of operating defective vehicles duringearly morning. The late night (22hOO - 24hOO) was also thequietest time with regard to vehicle-related offences.However, a total of 1301 (54,21%) represent vehicle-relatedoffences committed during times unknown to the researcher dueto incomplete information.In table 4.9 it will be seen that 384 (28,71%) documentoffences were committed during daytime and 148 (11,06%) duringthe early morning rush hours.Late afternoon produced only122 (9,12%) document offences. There were 98 (7,32%)document offences committed during the early evening. Latenight produced only one (0,07%) document offence. Documentoffences committed during unknown times are accounted for in585 (43,72%) of all the observed cases.140

Table 4.9 also reveals that the peak time for the commissionof all traffic offences was during daytime which produced 1637(25,66%) of the total offences. A total of 683 (10,71%)traffic offences were committed during late afternoon,while556 (8,71%) traffic offences occurred during early morning.The commission of traffic offences during early evening isaccounted for in 472 (7,40%) of the cases. A total of 3030(47,50%) traffic offences were committed during times unknownto the researcher due to incomplete information.4.6 AGE DISTRIBUTIONIt is usual for traffic officers in the magisterial districtof Lower Umfolozi to record the age of traffic offenders.Age is of interest for the following two reasons:(a) it is necessary to know which age groups are the mosttraffic lawless; and(b) it renders some indication of the relationship betweenage, experience, competence and the tendency orinclination to commit traffic offences.Table 4.10 presents the age distribution of 4771offenders.traffic141

TABLE 4.10 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS FOR THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990AGE OF OFFENDERSFREQUENCY(N) (% )18 - 20 YEARS 168 3,5221 - 30 YEARS 1010 21,1731 - 40 YEARS 1412 29,6041 - 50 YEARS 754 15,8051 - 60 YEARS 284 5,9561 - 70 YEARS 73 1,5371 - 80 YEARS 9 0,19UNKNOWN 1061 22,24TOTAL 4771 100,00142

FIGURE 4.11AGE DISTRIBUTION OFTRAFFIC OFFENDERS31 - 40Yrs18 - 20Yrs51 - 60Yrs21 - 30Yrs41 - 50Yrs61 - 70YrsUnknown71 - 80Yrs143

Table 4.10 reveals that most traffic offenders were in the agegroup 31 - 40 years and are accounted for in 1412 (29,60%) ofthe traffic cases. A total of 1010 (21,17%) trafficoffenders were aged between 21 and 30 years. The age group41 - 50 years produced 754 (15,80%) traffic offenders, whilethe ages of 284 (5,95%) traffic offenders ranged between 51and 60 years.The youngest traffic offenders were in the agegroup 18 - 20 years and constituted 168 (3,52%) of the totaltraffic offenders. The age group 61 - 70 years produced 73(1,53%) traffic offenders, while 9 (0,19%) motor vehicledrivers who violated traffic legislation were aged between 71and 80 years. Furthermore, as table 4.10 shows, thecommission of traffic offences declines with age.Theunknown age group of traffic offenders is accounted for in1061 (22,24%) of the total traffic offenders. Figure 4.11represents apie chart distribution of the data contained intable 4.10 which conveniently portrays the age groupdistribution of 4771 traffic offenders.Table 4.11 renders a breakdown of distribution of trafficoffences according to age. Figure 4.12 portrays aproportional bar graph distribution of the data contained intable 4.11, while figure 4.13 portrays the same data by meansof a polygon.144

TABLE 4.11 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO AGE FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990AGE OF OFFENDERSTYPE OF OFFENCEDRIVII!G OFFEllCE VEHICLE-RELATED 00CllIlEIIT OFFENCE TOTALOFFEllCE(X) (t) (X) (t) (X) (%) (X) (%)18 - 20 YEARS 96 3,64 17 0,71 76 5,68 189 2,%21 - 30 YEARS 556 21,05 343 14,29 283 21,15 1182 18,5331 - 40 YEARS 808 30,60 658 27,42 375 28,03 1841 28,8641 - 50 YEARS 443 16,77 390 16,25 166 12,41 999 15,66.51 - 60 YEARS 140 5,30 178 7,42 41 3,06 359 5,6361 - 70 YEARS 38 1,44 32 1,33 20 1,49 90 1,4171 - 80 YEARS 9 0,34 12 0,50 - - 21 0,33UHKIDiIl 551 20,86 770 32,08 m 28,18 1698 26,62TOTAL 2641 100,00 2400 100,00 1338 100,00 6379 100,00145

FIGURE 4.12TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO AGEGROUPS OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS1000NUMBE 800 ----R0FT 600RAFFI400c0FFE200NCESo18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 UnkAGE OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS (YRS)Offences_ Driving _ Vehicle-Related ki?J DocumentUnk ::: Unknown146

FIGURE 4.13TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TOAGE GROUPS OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS1000-,---------------------,NUMBERoFTRAFFICoFFENCES800 ---t-- ----/'r---------------"---------600 +--"/.// ..J ..\ ...,/200 ---1--->'------"''-""--------""-"""'"'""--~-------!-h'--l*--o i---,------r------.---""~-*--;:..:=:::::-~~~c-_118-2021-3031-4041-5051-6061-7071-80 Unk.-"'-"-,•,,•.,",••••400...;.////-+--+-~-----__'t\___---------...;.__+__1, *"\\AGE OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS (YRS)Offences- Driving "-+- Vehicle-Related -*- DocumentUnk. ==Unknown147

According to Conklin (1986:117) and Cavan (1958:47) each ageproduces a characteristic type of traffic offence. A totalof 808 (30,60%) driving offences were cOlll1llitted by trafficoffenders in the age group 31 - 40 years. The age category21 - 30 years produced 556 (21,05%) driving offences, while443 (16,77%) represent driving offences committed by trafficoffenders aged between 41 and 50 years. There were 140(5,30%) driving offences committed by drivers of motorvehicles in the age category 51 - 60 years. The youngesttraffic offenders were in the age group 18 - 20 years andthese offenders committed 96 (3,64%) driving offences.Thirty-eight (1,44%) driving offences were committed bytraffic offenders between the ages 61 and 70 years. Trafficoffenders aged between 71 and 80 years committed nine (0,34%)driving offences. The unknown age category of trafficoffenders produced 551 (20,86%) of the total driving offences.Drivers of motor vehicles were penalized for operatingdefective vehicles and penalization was meted out in 658(27,42%) of the traffic offenders aged between 31 and 40years. Traffic offenders in the age group 41 - 50 yearscommitted 390 (16,25%) vehicle-related offences, while the agecategory 21 - 30 years produced 343 (14,29%) offences.Traffic criminal responsibility of motor vehicle drivers agedbetween 51 and 60 years is accounted for in 178 (7,42%) of thecases. Thirty-two (1,33%) vehicle-related offences werecommitted by traffic offenders in the age group 61 - 70 years.The youngest traffic offenders aged between 18 and 20 yearscommitted 17 (0,71%) vehicle-related offences. Trafficoffenders in the age group 71 - 80 years were responsible for12 (0,50%) vehicle-related offences. A total of 770 (32,08%)vehicle-related offences were committed by traffic offenderswhose ages were unknown.148

Document offences committed by traffic offenders in the agegroup 31 - 40 years are accounted for in 375 (28,03%) of theoffences, while 283 (21,15%) were document offences committedby drivers of motor vehicles aged between 21 and 30 years.The age category 41 - 50 years produced 166 (12,41%) documentoffences. The youngest traffic offenders aged between 18 and20 years and committed 76 (5,68%) of the total documentoffences. Fourty-one (3,06%) document offences werecommitted by traffic offenders in the age group 51 - 60 years.The age group 61 - 70 years produced 20 (1,49%) documentoffences. Table 4.11 also shows that the ages were unknownin respect of traffic offenders who committed 377 (28,18%)document offences.An overall picture (table 4.11) is that traffic offendersbetween the ages 31 and 40 years committed more trafficoffences and these offences are accounted for in 1841 (28,86%)of the total traffic offences. The age group 21 - 30 yearsproduced 1182 (18,53%) traffic offences, while 999 (15,66%)represent offences committed by traffic offenders aged between41 and 50 years. Traffic criminal responsibility of the agecategory 51 -offences.60 years is accounted for in 359 (5,63%) trafficThe youngest traffic offenders aged between 18 and20 years committed 189 (2,96%) traffic offences. The leasttraffic offences were committed by traffic offenders in theage group 71 - 80 years and these offences constituted 21(0,33%) cases. A total of 1698 (26,62%) traffic offenceswere committed by the unknown age group of traffic offenders.4.7 SEX DISTRIBUTIONSex is the main factor which determines the physicalcharacteristics which distinguish traffic offenders as maleand female. In this respect, therefore, a man is better149

equipped than a woman. He possesses the necessary strength,the necessary muscular build and strong natural impulses. Ofall demographic variables, sex is the best predictor of crime(Conklin, 1986:111; Hagan, 1989:70). The researcher is ofthe opinion that the notion of sex being the best predictor ofcrime also applies to the study of penalization of trafficoffenders in the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi.Table 4.12 presents the sex distribution of 4771 trafficoffenders. Figure 4.14 renders a pie chart distribution ofthe data contained in this table.TABLE 4.12 SEX DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS FOR THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990SEX OF OFFENDERSFREQUENCY(N) (%)MALE 3701 77,57FEMALE 545 11,42UNKNOWN 525 11,01TOTAL 4771 100,00150

FIGURE 4.14SEX DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSMaleFemaleUnknown151

Table 4.12 reveals that the majority of traffic offenders weremales and are accounted for in 3701 (77,57%) of the totaltraffic offenders, while 545 (11,42%) female-traffic offenderswere penalized for traffic law violations. The unknown sexcategory of traffic offenders constituted 525 (11,01%) trafficcases.The relative contributions of male and female trafficoffenders to the three discrete categories of traffic offencesare shown in table 4.13, and -the proportions do not departmuch from the expectations of the criminologist who has becomeused to finding males greatly predominant among trafficoffenders.Table 4.13 renders a breakdown of the distribution of trafficoffences according to sex. A graphical distribution of thesame data is depicted in figure 4.15.152

TABLE 4.13 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO SEX FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990TYPEOFOFFEIICESEX OF OFFEIIDERDRIVIlIG OFFENCE VEHICLE-RELATED lXlCtlMENT TOTALOFFEIICEOFFENCE(N) (%) (N) C·,) (N) (%) (N) (% )MALE 1814 68,69 206S 86,17 1068 79,82 4950 77,60FEMALE 485 18,36 169 '1,04 43 3,21 697 10,93!JIlKnIll 342 U,95 163 6,79 227 16,97 732 11,47TOTAL 2641 100,00 2400 100,00 1338 100,00 6379 100,00153

FIGURE 4.15TRAFFIC OFFENCESACCORDING TO SEX2500NUMBE 2000 ....RI------------~--_._------------0FT 1500RAFFIC 10000FFENCES500oMaleFemaleUnknownSEX OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSOffences_Driving _Vehicle-Related I "cl Document154

Table 4.13 reveals that male traffic offenders committed 1814(68,69%) driving offences, while female traffic crimina1ity inrespect of driving offences is accounted for in 485 (18,36%)of the total cases.A total of 342 (12,95%) driving offenceswere committed by the unknown sex category of trafficoffenders. There were 2068 (86,17%) vehicle-related offencescommitted by male drivers of motor-vehicles.Female trafficoffenders were penalized for the commission of 169 (7,04%)vehicle-related offences,while traffic offenders of unknownsex committed 163 (6,79%) offences. Most document offences(table 4.13) were committed by males and these offences areaccounted for in 1068 (79,82%) traffic cases, while 43 (3,21%)document offences were committed by female traffic offenders.There were 227 (16,97%) document offences committed by trafficoffenders of unknown sex. An overall picture (table 4.13) isthat a total 4950 (77,60%) traffic offences were committed bymale traffic offenders. Female traffic criminality isaccounted for in 697 (10,93%) of the total traffic offences.A total of 732 (11,47%) traffic offences were committed bytraffic offenders of unknown sex.It is therefore evident that men commit much more trafficoffences than women. This universality of disproportionatemale traffic criminality can best be explained by thedifferential treatment of males and females (Mannheim,1965:699-708) • Traditionally, males are socialized to beactive, dominant, and aggressive. It is also probable thatthe law may require that the male should take responsibilityfor what occurs. This socialization process, in combinationwith a social structure that assigns statuses to people on thebasis of sex, often leads to differences in personality andtraffic criminal behaviour that are linked to the largedifference in traffic crime rates between male and femaletraffic offenders. Willett (Van der Westhuizen, 1982:147)155

opines: "When the sex ratio is considered the ground becomesfirmer, and it is no surprise to find that the female is lessactive as a detected law-breaker than the male. Theliterature mentions females but rarely, and even if we canassume that male drivers exceed females by between five andeight to one, it is indisputable that the motoring offender isnearly always a male. So the case goes against the maleaccording to all the available statistics. The ratio of maleto female among motoring offenders is, however, a provocativequestion, and one that is important in any study ofpersonality factors."4.8RACE ANDNATIONALITY OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS4.8.1Racial distributionIt should be noted that the concept race may be problematic inthe stUdy and understanding of the relation of race to trafficcrime. Hurwitz (1952:279) opines: "The very vagueness of theconcept of race is an obstacle in the way of exactinvestigations. The demarcation of races with" commonhereditary features from nationalities or peoples withcUltural, not biologically determined characteristics, givesrise to a variety of doubts. As particularly regards theEuropean culture area, the statistical data underlying acomparative investigation are associated with national andgeographical divisions containing a multiplicity ofanthropological types of mixtures of races. 11 This impliesthat race is a relatively arbitrary, socially defined status.Table 4.14 presents the distribution of 4771 traffic offendersaccording to race. The same data is presented by means of apie chart distribution - figure 4.16.156

TABLE 4.14 RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS FORTHE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990RACE OF OFFENDERSFREQUENCY(N) (%)BLACK 2291 48,02WHITE 1422 29,80COLOURED 72 1,51ASIAN 288 6,04UNKNOWN 698 14,63TOTAL 4771 100,00157

FIGURE 4.16TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDINGTO RACEColouredAsianBlackWhiteUnknown158

Table 4.14 reveals that Blacks were in the majority and areaccounted for in 2291 (48,02%) of the total traffic offenders.White drivers of motor vehicles were penalized for trafficviolations and these offenders constituted 1422 (29,80%) ofthe traffic cases. A total of 288 (6,04%) Asian trafficoffenders committed traffic offences. The Coloureds were theleast race penalized for traffic crime commission and areaccounted for in 72 (1,51%) cases. In 698 (14,63%) of theobserved traffic cases no form of race could be established.Table 4.15 renders a breakdown of traffic offences accordingto race, while figures 4.17 and 4.18 represent a graphicaldistribution of the data contained in this table.159

TABLE 4.15 BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO RACE FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990RACE OF OFFENDERSTYPE OF OFFENCEDRIVIIIG OFFEIICE VEHICLE-RELATED OOCUIIENT OFFEllCE TO'l'ALOFFEIICE(N) (%) (N) (% ) (N) (%) (N) (% )BLACK 827 31,31 1883 78,46 770 57,55 3480 54,55iIlIITE 1235 46,76 242 10,OS 237 17,71 1714 26,87aJLOORED 37 1,40 42 1,75 16 1,20 95 1,49ASIAJI 183 6,93 102 4,25 79 5,90 364 5,71UIlKlIaiII 359 13,60 131 5,46 236 17,64 726 11,38'IUl'AL 2641 100,00 2400 100,00 1338 100,00 6379 100,00160

_._--~FIGURE 4.17TRAFFIC OFFENCESACCORDING TO RACE2000NUMBER15000FTRAF1000FIC0FF500ENCES0Black White Coloured Asian UnknownRACE OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSOffences_ Driving _Vehicle-Related kid Document161

FIGURE 4.18TRAFFIC OFFENCESACCORDING TO RACENUMBE2000• , • • R 1500 •0FTRA 1000FFIC• • , • , ,•••••,•••0FFENCES500-'.. --_----~-_---.ll--"'. \-- ,.~.. \"-. \'.'--.~. ~-""_\* -·~-'-'''-'''-'--,--o.::.o_o-:__0BlackWhiteColouredAsianUnk.RACE OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSOffences~ Driving --+- Vehicle-Related ----*- DocumentUnk.=Unknown162

Table 4.15 reveals that Whites featured predominantly in thecommission of driving offences. A total of 1235 (46,76%)driving offences were committed by Whites. Blacks wereresponsible for 827 (31,31%) driving offences, while 183(6,93%) represent driving offences committed by Asians.Coloureds were the least in the commission of drivingoffences. In 2641 observed driving offences, 37 (1,40%)offences were committed by Coloureds. The commission ofdriving offences by traffic offenders of unknown race isaccounted for in 359 (13,60%) of the total driving offences.It is apparent (table 4.15) that Blacks featured predominantlyin the commission of vehicle-related offences. A total of1883 (78,46%) vehicle-related offences were committed byBlacks. The operation of defective vehicles by Whites isaccounted for in 242 (10,08%) of the total vehicle-relatedoffences. The Asians were penalized for operating defectivevehicles in 102 (4,25%) of the observed cases. Colouredswere the least in the commission of vehicle-related offencesand are accounted for in 42 (1,75%) of the observed cases. Atotal of 131 (5,46%) vehicle-related offences were committedby traffic offenders of unknown race.Table 4.15 reveals that Blacks featured predominantly in thecommission of document offences. The commission of documentoffences by Blacks is accounted for in 770 (57,55%) documentcases, while Whites were responsible for 237 (17,71%) documentoffences. Seventy-nine (5,90%) document offences werecommitted by Asians. Coloureds featured the least in respectof document offences and are accounted for in 16 (1,20%) ofthe total document offences. The unknown race category oftraffic offenders committed 236 (17,64%) document offences.163

An overall picture (table 4.15) is that Blacks committed moretraffic crimes than Whites, Asians and Coloureds. Blackswere responsible for a total of 3480 (54,55%) traffic crimes,while Whites committed 1714 (26,87%) traffic crimes. Thecommission of traffic offences by Asians is accounted for in364 (5,71%) cases, while the Coloureds featured the least intraffic criminality and are accounted for in 95observed traffic offences.committed by traffic offenders of unknown(1,49%) of theThere were traffic offencesoffenders committed 726 (11,38%) traffic offences.race and theseDifferences in traffic crime rates among racial groups are afunction of group differences in income, occupation,education, family background, and other socialcharacteristics, as well as a function of differences inopportunities to commit traffic offences. This would suggestthat if Blacks, Whites, Asians and Coloureds of similar socialbackgrounds are compared, differences in traffic crime ratesbetween the racial groups will be reduced or eliminated.4.8.2 Nationality distributionTable 4.16 presents the distribution of 4771 traffic offendersaccording to nationality. Likewise, figure 4.19 reflects agraphical distribution by means of a pie chart.164

TABLE 4.16 NATIONALITY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSFOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990NATIONALITY OF OFFENDERSFREQUENCY(N) (%)SOUTH AFRICAN CITIZEN 4081 85,54FOREIGNER 22 0,46UNKNOWN 668 14,00.TOTAL 4771 100,00165

FIGURE 4.19TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDINGTO NATIONALITYS. A. Citizen_-.ForeignerUnknown166

This table reveals that a total of 4081 (85,54%) trafficoffenders were South African citizens, while 22 (0,46%) wereforeigners. In 668 (14,00%) of the observed traffic cases noform of nationality could be established.4.9 OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTIONIt is of crucial importance that an individual should derivesatisfaction from his/her occupation.occupational maladjustments derived fromDissatisfactions andfailure to considerthe workers' social interests may lead to the commission of(traffic) offences (Hannheim, 1965:588-589). Table 4.17 andfigure 4.20 present the occupational distribution of trafficoffenders whose occupations were recorded according to afive- category scale. The researcher identified thirteenoccupations of traffic offenders (Annexure B). For purposesof this table, the researcher collapsed and combinedoccupations into a five - category scale:(a)professional, executive and managerial occupations whichincluded professional workers, executive and managerial,public relations and administrative;(b)skilled occupations which included technical-relatedworkers and agricultural workers;(c) unskilled occupations which included general labourersand students/scholars;(d)professional drivers employed in transport services andwhose livelihood is contingent upon operating motorvehicles; and167

(e) other occupations which included traffic offenders whowere: self employed, semi-skilled; employed in armed andsecurity forces.Traffic offenders were allotted by the researcher to thisfive-category scale arbitrarily. Unfortunately, informationconcerning occupations of certain traffic offenders wasincomplete, hence the unknown category in tables 4.17 and4.18.TABLE 4.17 OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS FOR THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990OCCUPATION OF OFFENDERSFREQUENCY(N) (%)PROFESSIONAL, EXECUTIVE AND MANAGERIAL 886 18,57SKILLED 539 11,30PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS 1511 31,67UNSKILLED 234 4,90OTHER 420 8,80UNEMPLOYED 210 4,41UNKNOWN 971 20,35TOTAL 4771 100,00168

FIGURE 4.20TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDINGTO OCCUPATION1600NU 1400MBER 12000FT 1000RAFFIC8000 600FFEN 400DERS 200oEx. Sk. Pd. Us. Ot. Ue. Un.OCCUPATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSEX.::ExecufiveSk.:=SkilledPd.==Professionaf Drivers Us.==UnskilledOf.=Ofher Ue.=Unemployed Un.=Unknown169

Table 4.17 reveals that professional drivers constituted 1511(31,67%) of the total traffic offenders, while 886 (18,57%)traffic offenders were in professional, executive andmanagerial occupations.Traffic offenders with skilledoccupations constituted 539 (11,30%) of the total trafficcases.Penalization was meted out for the commission oftraffic offences by 234 (4,90%) occupationally unskilledtraffic offenders. There were 420 (8,80%) traffic offendersin the "other" occupation category scale. A total of 210(4,41%) traffic offenders were unemployed, while the unknownoccupation category of traffic offenders is accounted for in971 (20,35%) of the observed 4771 traffic cases.Table 4.18 renders a breakdown of traffic offences accordingto occupation. Figure 4.21 depicts the same data.170

TABLE 4.18BREAKDOWN AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICOFFENCES ACCORDING TO OCCUPATION FOR THE PERIOD01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990OCCIlPATIOlI OFOFFEllDERTYPE OF OFFEllCEDRIVIlIG OFFEllCE VEHICLE-RELATED JXX:lJMENT TOTALOFFEllCEOFFElICE(H) (%) (H) (%) (H) (%) (H) (%)PROl'I'SSIOlIAL,EXECUTIVE JJlI)IlAJlAGERIAL 695 26,32 287 11,96 108 8,07 1090 17,09SKILLED 340 12,87 175 7,29 148 11,06 663 10,39PROl'I'SSIOlIALDRIVERS 577 21,85 920 38,33 520 38,86 2017 31,62lJ!Isrn.um 66 2,50 102 4,25 82 6,14 250 3,92OTIIER 247 9,35 151 6,29 47 3,51 445 6,98tJmlPlDYED 131 4,96 192 8,00 49 3,66 372 5,83lJJlKIIIlIII 585 22,15 573 23,88 384 28,70 1542 24,17TCIf!L 2641 100,00 2400 100,00 1338 100,00 6379 100,00171

FIGURE 4.21TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDINGTO OCCUPATION1000---"--------------------,NUMBERoFTRAFFICoFFENCES800600400200oEx. Sk. Pd. Us. at. Ue. Un.OCCUPATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSOffences_ Driving _ Vehicle-Related 1':·'1 DocumentEx.=ExecutiveSk.=SkilledPd.=Professional Drivers Us.=UnskilfedOt.=Other Ue.=Unemployed Un.=Unknown172

Table 4.18 reveals that the professional, executive andmanagerial occupation category of traffic offenders featuredpredominantly in driving offences and committed 695 (26,32%)of the total driving offences. Professional drivers wereresponsible for 577 (21,85%) driving offences, whileoccupationally skilled traffic offenders committed 340(12,87%) driving offences. Traffic crime commission by the"other" occupation category of traffic offenders is accountedfor in 247 (9,35%) driving offences. A total of 66 (2,50%)driving offences were committed by traffic offenders who wereoccupationally unskilled. Traffic offenders in theunemployed category committed 131 (4,96% ) driving offences,while a total of 585 (22,15%) driving offences were committedby traffic offenders in the unknown occupation category.Table 4.18 shows that professional drivers featuredpredominantly in vehicle-related offences and are accountedfor in 920 (38,33%) of the cases. A total of 287 (11,96%)vehicle-related offences were committed by traffic offendersin the professional, executive and managerial occupationcategory, while the skilled traffic offender occupationcategory was responsible for 175 (7,29%) vehicle-relatedoffences. Traffic offenders in the "other" occupationcategory committed 151 (6,29%) vehicle-related offences. Theunskilled-traffic offender occupation category was responsiblefor 102 (4,25%) vehicle-related offences. Traffic crimecommission by unemployed traffic offenders is accounted for in192 (8,00%) vehicle-related offences, while 573 (23,88%)vehicle defects were identified in respect of trafficoffenders whose occupations were unknown.Professional drivers featured predominantlyin documentoffences (table 4.18) and these drivers of motor vehicles werepenalized for the commission of 520 (38,86%) document173

offences. Traffic offence responsibility of trafficoffenders in the skilled-traffic offender occupation categoryis accounted for in 148 (11,06%) cases. Drivers of motorvehicles in the professional, executive and managerialoccupation category were penalized for committing 108 (8,07%)document offences, while traffic offenders who wereoccupationally unskilled produced 82 (6,14%) documentoffences. The "other" traffic offender occupation categorywas responsible for 47 (3,51%) document offences.Fourty-nine (3,66%) document offences were committed by theunemployed traffic offenders. Traffic offenders whoseoccupations were unknown committed 384 (28,70%) documentoffences.It is evident from table 4.18 that professional drivers wereresponsible for most of the traffic offences and their trafficoffence liability is accounted for in 2017 (31,62%) trafficoffences. Second was the professional, executive andmanagerial traffic offender occupation category Which wasresponsible for 1090 (17,09%) of the total traffic offences.Traffic offence commission by traffic offenders with skilledoccupations is accounted for in 663 (10,39%) traffic offences.A total of 445 (6,98%) traffic offences were theresponsibility of-traffic offenders in the "other" category ofoccupations, while 250 (3,92%) traffic offences were committedby traffic offenders in the unskilled occupation category.The unemployed traffic offenders were responsible for 372(5,83%) traffic offences. Traffic offenders whoseoccupations were unknown committed 1542 (24,17%) trafficoffences.Cloete (Cloete & Stevens, 1990:82) maintains that unemploymentis a causal factor of crime (not excluding traffic crime).The causal significance of unemployment lies mainly in the174

fact that under normal circumstances, unemployment exercises adisruptive influence on the individual traffic offender'spersonality.Family relationships are adversely affected andthe traffic offender's sense of value is eroded.Frustrationand stress, as concomitants of unemployment, may undermine amotor vehicle driver's moral power to withstand the temptationto commit traffic offences. Unemployment may cause certaintraffic offenders to increase their likelihood of committingparticular traffic offences at certain times.It should be noted that certain occupations may be dangerousto some drivers of motor vehicles because of the specialopportunities and temptations which they may offer forcommitting traffic offences. The traffic offender'soccupation or previous occupation plays an important role indetermining his outlook and way of behaviour and this mayinfluence and shape his traffic offence. The trafficoffender's occupation may also provide him with the modusoperandi and opportunities required for his traffic offence.The traffic officer, for instance, after being dismissed formisconduct, may still pose as such and use his perfect mannersto help him in his commission of an offence.4.10 ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTIONThe study of traffic crime by geographical areas is of crucialimportance in the understanding of penalization of trafficoffenders. Ecological distribution implies the observationthat traffic offences are apparently not distributed equallyin the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi. The obviousimplication attached to this notion is that, in some areastraffic crime is endemic, while in others it is rarelyencountered. An attempt to analyze the geographicaldistribution of traffic offences implies concern with ecology175

of drivers of motor vehicles and their connection with trafficoffences. The conceptual framework of ecology of trafficcrime assumes that atraffic offender is an organic creatureand therefore behaves according to the general laws of theorganic world. Human ecology deals with the relations ofpeople to their spatial environment and to their variousreactions to the various environmental stresses and strainswhich include the commission of traffic offences.ecological approach also uses the map-making method1981:155; Annexure A).The(Gibbons,Table 4.19 presents the ecological distribution of 4771traffic offenders. Figure 4.22 reflects the graphicaldistribution of the data contained in this table.176

TABLE 4.19 ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSFOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990PLACE OF TRAFFIC OFFENCEFREQUENCY(N) (%)EMPANGENI 1123 23,54RICHARDS BAY 1296 27,16N2 (DURBAN MAIN ROAD) 371 7,78R619 466 9,77R34 549 11,51KWAMBONAMBI 54 1,13NGWELEZANE ROAD 186 3,89Bl°jUMHLATHUZI VALLEY SUGARCOMPANY 79 1,66UNKNOWN 647 13,56TOTAL 4771 . 100,00177

FIGURE 4.22TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDINGTO PLACE OF OFFENCE COMMISSION1400Nu 1200MBER10000FTR 800AFFI600 cENDERs0FF400200oEmp. RB. N2 R619 R34 KwM. Ngw. 810 Unk.PLACE OF COMMISSIONEmp.=Empangen; RB.=R/Bay Unk=UnknownKwM. ~KwaMbonQmb; NglII. =Ngwelezana810=UVS(Umhlalhuz; Valley Sugar Company)178

Table 4.19 reveals that 1296 (27,16%) drivers of motorvehicles committed traffic offences in Rl.chards Bay urbanarea. A total of 1123 (23,54%) traffic offenders werepenalized for traffic offence commission in Empangeni urbanarea, while 549 (11,51%) motor vehicle drivers violatedtraffic legislation in the public road R34(Annexure A).Traffic offent:!ers were responsible for traffic offencescommitted in the public road R619 (Annexure A) and thesetraffic offenders constituted 466 (9,77%) of the totaloffenders. A total of 371 (7,78%) traffic offenders werepenalized for traffic offence commission in the national roadN2, while 186 (3,89%) motor vehicle drivers were apprehendedin Ngwelezane road. The BI0jUmhlathuzi Valley Sugar companypublic road produced 79 (1,66%) traffic offenders. Trafficoffences in KwaMbonambi urban area were committed by 54(1,13%) traffic offenders. A total of 647 (13,56%) trafficoffenders committed offences in unknown places.Table 4.20 renders a breakdown of the ecological distributionof traffic offences. Likewise, figures 4.23 and 4.24 depictdata contained in this table.179

TABLE 4.20 BREAKlXJliIf ABIl FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAfFIC OFFENCES ACCORDING TO PLACE FOR THEPERIOD Ol JIJIUARY - 30 J1JIlE 1990PLACE OF TRAFFICTYPE OF OFFENCEOFFEIICE DRIVIllG 01'FEliCE VEHICLE-RELATED 00ClJ!I00 TOTALOFFEJiCEOFFEllCE(Il) U) (H) (% ) (H) (%) (H) (%)EMPAKGEBI 555 21,01 489 20,38 313 23,39 1357 21,27RICllIJIDS BAY 1030 39,00 366 15,25 280 20,93 1676 26,27H2 98 3,71 295 12,29 163 12,18 556 8,72R619 346 13,10 134 5,58 70 5,23 550 8,62R34 312 11,81 244 10,17 184 13,75 740 11,60KlIIJlOOIIAI4BI 5 0,20 48 2,00 Tl 2,02 80 1,25!IGliELEZAlIll ROAD 7 0,27 164 6,83 34 2,54 205 3,22B10fUllllLATHOZI VAL-LEY SOGAR COO'AIlY 14 0,53 58 2,42 44 3,29 116 1,82UIlK!lOliB Tl4 10,37 602 25,08 223 16,67 1099 17,23TOTAL 2641 100,00 2400 100,00 1338 100,00 6379 100,00180

FIGURE 4.23TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDINGTO PLACENUMf200B 1000ER._--_..oFTRAFF800600JCoFFENCES400200oEmp. R8. N2 R619 R34 KwM. Ngw. 810 Unk.PLACE OF COMMISSION_DrivingOffences_ Vehicle-Related !'·"I DocumentEmp.=Empangeni RB.=R/Bay Unk=UnknawnKwM.=KwaMbonambi Ngw.=NgwefezanaBIO=UVS(Umhlathuzi Valley Sugar Campany)181

FIGURE 4.24TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACCORDINGTO PLACEJ200 -y-----------------------,NUMB 1000ERo F 800TRAFFICoFfENCES600400----*200 +---, ,+.... _*/,,•,.--------,-,•., • ,•--:--~ 'r----------------:--,,~... ", ',," ' :oL---r---,---.---------r--~~~~__1Emp. R8.N2 R619 R34 KwM. Ngw. 810 Unk.PLACE OF COMMISSIONOffences~ Driving --+-- Vehicle-Related ~ DocumentEmp,=Empangeni RB.::::R/Bay Unk=UnknownKwM=KwaMbonambi Ngw.=Ngwelezana810=/JIIS(Umhlothuzi Valley Sugar Company)182

Table 4.20 reveals that 1030 (39,00%) driving offences werecommitted in Richards Bay, while Empangeni produced 555(21,01%) driving offences. A total of 346 (13,10%) drivingoffences were committed in the pUblic road R619. Drivingoffence commission in the public road R34 is accounted for in312 (11,81%) of the cases. The national road N2produced 98(3,71%) driving offences, while 14 (0,53%) were drivingoffences committed in BI0jUmhlathuzi Valley Sugar Companypublic road. Penalization was meted out for the commissionof driving offences in KwaMbonambi and these offences areaccounted for in five (0,20%) of the cases. There were seven(0,27% ) driving offences committed in Ngwelezane Road.Traffic offence commission in unknown places is accounted forin 274 (10,37%) driving offences.It is evident from table 4.20. that the greatest number ofvehicle-related offences were committed in Empangeni and theseoffences are accounted for in 489 (20,38%) of the cases, while366 (15,25%) vehicle-related offences were committed inRichards Bay. The operation of defective vehicles in thenational road N2 was penalized in 295 (12,29%) vehicle-relatedoffences. The occurrence of vehicle-related offences wasobserved in 244 (10,17%) of the cases, while Ngwelezane roadproduced 164 (6,83%) offences. There were 134 (5,58%)instances of operating defective vehicles in the public roadR619. Vehicle-related offences committed in BI0jUmhlathuziValley Sugar Company public road and KWaMbonamhi are accountedfor respectively in 58 (2,42%) and 48 (2,00%) offences. Theunknown places produced 602 (25,08%) vehicle-related offences.It can be seen (table 4.20) that where document offencesoccurred, 313 (23,39%) were committed in Empangeni. RichardsBay and the public road R34 produced respectively 280 (20,93%)and 184 (13,75%) document offences. The occurrence of183

document offences in the national road N2 is accounted for in163 (12,18%) offences, while 70 (5,23%) document offences werecommitted in the public road R619. Fourty-four (3,29%)document offences occurred in B10jUmhlathuzi Valley SugarCompany public road. The commission of document offences inNgwelezane Road occurred in 34 (2,54%) of the observed cases.Twenty-seven (2,02%) document offences were committed inKWaMbonambi, while the unknown places prodnced 223 (16,67%)document offences.Table 4.20 reveals that the greatest number of trafficoffences were committed in Richards Bay and the offencesconstituted 1676 (26,27%) of the total observed cases. Atotal of 1357 (21,27%) traffic offences were committed inEmpangeni, while the occurrence of traffic offences in thepublic road R34 is accounted for in 740 (11,60%) cases. Thenational road N2 produced 556 (8,72%) traffic offences.There were 550 (8,62%) traffic offences committed in thepUblic road R619. Traffic offence commission in NgwelezaneRoad is accounted for in 205 (3,22%) offences and there were116 (1,82%) traffic offences committed in the B10jUmhlathuziValley Sugar Company public road. The least commission oftraffic offences took place in KwaMbonambi and these offencesare accounted for in 80 (1,25%) cases. Traffic crimecommission in unknown places was observed in 1099 (17,23%) ofthe total traffic offences.There is arelationship between traffic crime and the densityof population. This can be noticed in traffic offencescommitted in Richards Bay and Empangeni which are mostly urbanand built-up, with a high density of traffic of all kinds(table 4.20). It is, therefore, appropriate to assume thatgreater density with its consequent intensity of friction,would mean greater commission of traffic offences. The184

almost universal availability of motor vehicles have providedthe opportunities for easier mobility and thereby contributingto the commission of traffic offences. People have got usedto frequent changes of their places of residence and work andto travelling wider distances for work and pleasure.Ecological distribution of traffic offences often results indifferential traffic law enforcement (Gibbons, 1981:155).4.11 SUMMARYIn this chapter the researcher has examinedrelationships/correlations between traffic offenders andtraffic offences in the magisterial district of LowerUmfolozi. Traffic offences became known through directcontact with traffic officers, except some parking offenceswhere spot fine citations (Annexure D) were displayed bytraffic officers in motor vehicles of traffic offenders.Five steps are usually followed by traffic officers in theapprehension of traffic offenders. The incidence of trafficoffences implied an analysis of 4771 traffic offenders asdistributed among Richards Bay, Empangeni and KwaMbonambipolice stations. Traffic crime rates also varied with thetime of the day, day of the week and month of the year. Theresearcher has also analysed variations in traffic offences inrelation to the following demographic variables:****age;sex;race; andoccupation.185

Traffic offence commission in some areas is high, while inothers it rarely occurs. This implies that traffic offencesare not equally distributed in the magisterial district ofLower Umfolozi.186

CHAPTER 5TRAFFIC LAWENFORCEMENT5.1 INTRODUCTIONTraffic l.aw enforcement is often visual.ized as a fairl.yrestricted activity, but when l.ooked at it within theframework of road safety, it becomes an encompassing fiel.dwith many impl.ications. Traffic l.aw enforcement has beennecessary ever since man shoul.dered a burden and col.l.ided on anarrow tail. with another man. with the taming of wil.danimal.s and their subsequent use as beasts of burden, trafficoffences have increased. The devel.opment of the wheel. addedto the probl.em and traffic l.aw enforcement, therefore, becamemandatory./Traffic l.aw enforcement is the special.ist function of theindividual. traffic officer which puts him and his trafficorganisation in the spotl.ight. It is thus essential. for thetraffic officer to handl.e traffic l.egisl.ation with care.Traffic l.egisl.ation is enforced within the framework ofmaintaining l.aw and order. Traffic l.aw enforcement is thetotal. of those actions ,taken by traffic officers in deal.ingwith traffic offenders. This entail.s a sound knowl.edge ofroad traffic l.egisl.ation, traffic control, investigation oftraffic accidents and rel.ated matters, court procedures andcoll.ection of evidence with the aim of having the trafficoffender prosecuted.187

5.2 OBJECTIVES OF TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENTTraffic law enforcement assists in expediting the smooth flowof traffic and it is the way in which the traffic officersmake the most direct contact with the greatest number of thepUblic (Waldron, 1980:120). The purpose of traffic lawenforcement is directed mainly at people in the trafficsituation and the objective being to encourage a positiveattitude in the road user. The following are the mostimportant objectives:* to stimulate faster and safer traffic flow throughcareful driving habits and observance of road trafficlegislation;* to render services to anyone needing help;* to meet legal and social requirements where traffic lawenforcement is required, for instance, in trafficaccidents and investigation of traffic offences;* to enforce road traffic legislation uniformly; and* to increase the exercise of traffic authority withdiscretion where traffic regulations are incomplete.Traffic law enforcement also entails the learning experiencefor the traffic officer (Hand et al. 1976:105-106). Thefollowing are the effects of the learning experience resultingfrom traffic officer - public interaction:188

(a) a positive reaction which implies that the driverunderstands the reason why he has been confronted, knowsthe implications and consequences of the section of theroad traffic legislation he has violated and undertakesnot to commit the same traffic offence in future;(b) a negative learning experience which implies that theroad user takes little notice of the implications andconsequences of the traffic offence and never learns bythem; and(c) a neutral or temporary reaction which implies that thedriver is intellectually aware of violating traffic lawbut he feels that the traffic officer has other moreimportant functions than stopping him (Hand et al.1976:105-106). Roberts (1971:603) maintains that highlyqualified and diplomatic traffic officers are required inrespect of traffic law enforcement with learning as itsobjective because traffic law enforcement with learningcan be rejected by the road user if helearning technique as humiliating.regards the5.3 NATURE OF TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENTThe motor vehicle has added greatly to the convenience ofmodern living, but it has at the same time become the mostserious of all threats to social order and safety. There aretwo basic components of traffic law enforcement: structuraland functional (Cloete & Conradie, 1984:85; Van Heerden,1976:223; Waldron, 1980:120-121; Wilson & HCLaren;"1977:439-440). The science of traffic control studies theconstructs (structural contexts) and enforcement actions(functional components). structural traffic control dealswith legislation and the physical aspects (road engineering189

and environment). The functional component consists ofperson and traffic- oriented action, and actual traffic lawenforcement belongs to this category of traffic control.5.3.1 structural traffic controlstructural traffic control relates mainly to the activities ofthe traffic engineer.The purpose of traffic engineering isto design roadway facilities, safe, convenient and economictransport of people and goods (Leonard, 1971:27; Wilson &MCLaren, 1977:439). The traffic engineer requiresinformation concerning the flow of traffic and problem areas(dangerous intersections, road surface conditions,etc).Road signs and road markings are introduced only after theproblem has been carefully studied by the traffic engineer.The main objective of traffic engineering is to achieveefficient, free and rapid flow of traffic and to preventtraffic offences and traffic accidents (weston, 1978:205).Theareas:task of the traffic engineer is divided into five main(a)study of the nature of traffic:this implies the science of measuring traffic in terms ofthe fundamental laws of traffic flow;(b)traffic operations:this refers to the application of the knowledgeoperating traffic systems;to(c)transport planning;(d)geometric design; and190

(e) administration (Clark, 1982:214-215). There are sevenareas of specialization in traffic engineering:* vehicle and human factors:* traffic volumes, speed and delays:* traffic flow and the carrying capacity of streetsand intersections:* travelling patterns, trip-generating factors,origins and destinations:* parking and terminal factors;* mass transport systems: and* collisions (Clark, 1982:215). The above constitutethe responsibilities of the traffic engineer. Theactivities of the traffic engineer are three-fold:the data collection and observation stage;the analysis stage; andthe design stage (Davies, 1960:18-19).5.3.2 Functional components of traffic controlThe functional components of traffic control consist mainly ofproactive and reactive traffic law enforcement.191

J/5.3.2.1Proactive traffic law enforcementThe proactive approach is inherent in measures adopted by asociety for the purpose of reinforcing its control over thebehaviour of individual members (Van Heerden, 1976:152; Cloete& Conradie, 1984:94). In this sense, proactive traffic lawenforcement include:(a)fostering respect for the control structure, therebypromoting voluntary compliance with traffic law;(b)short-term preventive techniques such as traffic patrolsby which opportunities for traffic conflict could beeliminated or reduced;(c)long-term preventive techniques such as traffic lawenforcement education;(d) the creation of safe traffic environment by improvingtraffic flow;(e)rendering auxiliary services which contribute tostrengthen mutual respect and confidence in the trafficauthority structure; and(f)any of the section designed to prevent the repetition oftraffic conflict (Van Heerden, 1982:16-17).The following are the aims of the various techniques used inproactive traffic law enforcement:* prevention of traffic accidents;* supervision and surveillance of road users;192

* preventive enforcement which involves the enforcement ofrules of the road, speed tests, etc;* vehicle inspection in relation to roadworthiness,inspection of roads and road signs - all this beinggeared to the reduction of accident risks;* improvement of the traffic flow by regulating traffic;* traffic education which implies dialoque with· road usersin order to teach them how to behave properly on theroad; and* rendering auxiliary services such as first aid to theinjured at the traffic accident scene (Van Heerden et al.1983 :46-47).5.3.2.2 Reactive traffic law enforcementReactive enforcement refers to action after traffic conflict(Van Heerden, 1976:152). Reactive enforcement includes allefforts bytraffic officers after traffic control measuressuch as traffic control, traffic education,driver-training,traffic engineering and related activities have failed tomaintain traffic order.Traffic conflict is dealt witheither by eliminating or reducing the causes of trafficconflict.Reactive measures may be directed towards thetraffic conflict itself, for example, investigation of trafficaccidents or towards the causes of obstructions to trafficflow, for example, the writing out of parking tickets ortowing away of vehicles causing obstructions. Further,reactive measures may consist of prosecuting trafficoffenders, for example, apprehension of drivers:193

* who commit driving offences;* who commit document offences; and* who drive defective vehicles (Van Heerden et al.1983:47).5.3.2.3 Remote functional enforcementIt should be noted that traffic law enforcement is not alwaysconfined to proactive and reactive measures. Trafficconditions are dynamic and yet traffic must be controlled.It is therefore not certain which form of traffic lawenforcement will take place at any given time. It is forthis reason that it may be not easy to classify every actionperformed by traffic officers as proactive or reactivemeasures. In such circumstances it is appropriate to referto undefined traffic law enforcement. Traffic officerssometimes perform actions not directly connected with themaintenance of traffic order, even though it may be part oftheir duties, for example, serving of summonses or providingan escort for dignitaries. Van Heerden et al. (1983:47-48)refer to such activities as remote functions.:=-5.4 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONSTraffic control is differentiated in South Africa and inparticular it is the duty of provincial administrations andlocal authorities. In the magisterial district of LowerUmfolozi traffic control is mainly effected by threeorganizations:* Natal Provincial Administration, based at Empangeni;194

* Empangeni municipality traffic department; and* Richards Bay municipality traffic department.It is necessary for the researcher to outline the threetraffic control organizations in order to fully understand andlocate the various issues surrounding traffic law enforcementin the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi.5.4.1 Natal Provincial AdministrationTraffic legislation makes provision for various trafficorganizations in respect of each province. Each trafficorganization exercises authority within its jurisdiction overtraffic and related matters. The organizational structure ofthe Natal Provincial Administration, Empangeni, is depicted infigure 5.1.195

FIGURE 5.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF NATAL PROVINCIALADMINISTRATION,EHPANGENI TRAFFIC DIVISION.REGIONAL CHIEFPROVINCIAL INSPECTORTHREE STATION COMMANDERS:ESHOWE, EHPANGENI, HTUBATUBAII.PRINCIPAL TRAFFIC OFFICERTRAFFIC OFFICERSCLERICAL ASSISTANTSGENERAL LABOURERSIIIThe regional chief inspectorate performs the followingimportant functions:(a)traffic law enforcement by prosecuting traffic offenders;and(b)implementing specific road traffic legislation whichinclude control over traffic and related matters.196

Traffic legislation makes provlslon for the appointment ofprovincial traffic officers, inspectors of licences, examinersof vehicles and traffic officers for testing of applicants fordrivers' licences. Further, traffic legislation authorizestraffic officers to act against any traffic offender withinthe jurisdiction of the area in which they operate. In thisregard they are equipped with all the powers that are grantedto a peace officer or a police officer in terms of theCriminal Procedure Act (South Africa, 1977: sections 37(1),40&41) .The permanent appointment of a traffic officer is sUbject tothe successful completion of training within twelve months ofhis original appointment (South Africa, 1989: Sec. 3(2». Aspecific syllabus is followed during training. It is idealthat the scope and content of the syllabus should be changedorily after due consultation with the various training centres(Potgieter, 1983:3). The administrative services are alsoprovided by the regional chief provincial inspector with theassistance of the station commander. These administrativefunctions include, inter alia,:* registration of motor vehicles; and* licensing of motor vehicles.5.4.2 Traffic organizations of Empangeni and Richards Baylocal authoritiesThe size, status and vehicle population of the towns are themain factors affecting traffic organisation.Organizationally, traffic organizations fall under the chieftraffic officer who, depending on town councils' organization,197

eports to the town clerk. The following is the rankhierarchy of Empangeni and Richards Bay local authorities(Figures 5.2 and 5.3):198

FIGURE 5.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF EMPANGENIMUNICIPALITY TRAFFIC DEPARTMENTCHIEF PROTECTIVESERVICES OFFICERrASSISTANT CHIEFPROTECTIVE SERVICESOFFICERIOPERATIONSTr I I IFIRE CIVIL TRAFFIC SECURITYSERVICESDEFENCE1 1 I ITWO SUPERINTENDENTSrTRAFFIC OFFICERSrCLERICAL STAFFGENERALILABOURERS199

FIGURE 5.3 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF RICHARDS BAY MUNICIPALITY TRAFFICDEPARTMENTCHIEF TRAFFICOFFICERrOPERATIONSADMINISTRATION TRAFFIC LAW TRAFFICENFORCEMENTENGINEERINGTASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANTSUPERINTENDENT SUPERINTENDENT SUPERINTENDENTIIADMINISTRATIVE TRAFFIC CLERICALSTAFF OFFICERS STAFFIICLERICALSTAFFIGENERALLABOURERSRESERVETRAFFIC WARDENS200

The objectives of municipal traffic organizations are aimed atsafeguarding the road users within the magisterial district ofLower Umfolozi. The authority that is required in order tofulfil this function is granted in terms of the road trafficlegislation. There are primary and secondary (supplementary)functions of municipal traffic organizations. The primaryfunction is the application of road traffic legislation whichpertains to the provision of traffic services. Thesupplementary functions include, inter alia, following upprosecutions by means of the various steps that should befollowed: provision of technical services, in-servicetraining, etc.The legal position of the municipal traffic officer is similarto that of the provincial traffic officer. This similaritypertains to his official capacity with regard to thefollowing:* the issuing of written notices in terms of the CriminalProducedure Act (South Africa, 1977: Sections 56&341):* arresting someone without a warrant (South Africa, 1977:Section 40(1):* the powers that are granted to a peace officer (SouthAfrica, 1977:Section 41(1):* execution of warrants of arrest (South Africa,1977:Section 44); and* the powers that are granted to a police officer (SouthAfrica, 1977: Sections 37(1) (c) & 2(1)(a».i201

Figure 5.2 also reveals that traffic officers in Empangeniperform other functions not linked with traffic lawenforcement. A traffic officer performs functions related tofire services, civil defence or security.Similarly the assistant superintendent (administration)(figure 5.3) performs, inter alia, the following functions:(a) liaison with the media in connection with mattersrelating to traffic law enforcement,-amended and newtraffic legislation. He also deals with trafficeducation. Traffic education is a sustained, long-termprocess for changing attitudes, dispositions and habitsin accordance with the accepted rules of road behaviour.It is hoped that through traffic education good drivinghabits will prevail; and(b) the training of traffic officers. The assistantsuperintendent (traffic law enforcement), has appointedreserve traffic wardens in terms of the Road Traffic Act(South Africa, 1989: section 3(1)(d». These trafficwardens perform the following functions:* control over the flow of traffic especially atschool points;* conduct research surveys pertaining to road safetyin Richards Bay and submit the report to the trafficengineer; and* arrange and monitor functions pertaining to trafficsafety at local schools.202

The assistant superintendent (traffic engineering) plays animportant role with regard to designing public roads so as tolessen the frequency of traffic crimes, traffic accidents andthe amount of congestion thereby facilitating safe and rapidmovement of traffic.5.5 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIESTraffic law enforcement comprises several activities aimed atrealizing the primary goal of traffic safety. Theseactivities relate to specific prescriptions with regard to thefunctions of the traffic officer which fall into three areas:administrative;executive; andsupervisory (Cloete & Conradie, 1984:87-88).5.5.1 Administrative functionsThe administrative functions include demanding fullparticulars in connection with public motor vehicles, evidencewhich will lead to the penalization of traffic offenders,certificate of fitness, public and private vehicle permits,keeping records and registers, weighing and testing ofvehicles (South Africa, 1989: Sections 2-13).5.5.2 Executive functionsThe executive functions of the traffic officer includeremoving vehicles obstructing the traffic or posing adanger;removing vehicles involved in accidents; serving summonses;demanding the production of drivers' licences, clearancecertificates and certificates of fitness; investigation andconfiscation; demanding names and addresses; asking forrelevant information; entering premises; halting traffic;203

inspecting vehicles; prohibiting persons from drivinq anyfurther,; regulating and controlling traffic; inspectingvehicle loads: closing entries to and exits from roads andlifting such restrictions (Smit, 1989:4).The traffic officer mayduties and powers of apersons are found driving vehicles on ain certain circumstances assume somepeace officer, for instance, wherepublic road whileunder the influence of alcohol or drugs; he may demand namesand addresses in the event of failure to stop after acollision or where there is interference with or obstructionof his duties and refusal to obey commands or instructions(Cloete & Conradie, 1984:87-88).5.5.3 Supervisory functionsFunctions relating to traffic supervision include promotingthe smooth flow of traffic and road safety (Clark, 1982:249;Cloete & Conradie, 1984:88). TWo important functions may bedistinguished here:(a) repressive supervision which implies ensuring thattraffic laws are obeyed by prosecuting traffic offendersand preventive supervision which aims at encouraging goodroad user behaviour: and(b)observation of traffic laws with a view to reporting andrectifying factors detrimental to the flow of traffic androad safety (Barkhuizen, 1967:297; Van Heerden,1976:16-17).204

5.5.4 Surveillance activitiesTraffic law enforcement sometimes involves the directsurveillance of traffic flow and those participating in it(Wilson & McLaren, 1977:346-347). O'Hara (1976:199) definesdirect surveillance as .....the covert observation of places,persons and vehicles for the purpose of obtaining informationconcerning the identities or activities of subjects." Thisimplies that direct surveillance enables the traffic officer:(a)to sUbstantiate or disprove illegal traffic activities;(b)to verify data on traffic patterns;(c)to procure or confirm descriptions and registrationnumbers of motor vehicles used for criminal activities;and(d)to apprehend trafficoffenders red-handed.Gilbert(1980:350) maintainsthat there are twotypesofsurveillance:* sporadic surveillance,where observation takes place at random. This implies thatno attempt is made to observe vehicle drivers and places on afixed or continuous basis; and* continuous surveillance,where vehicle drivers and places are observed on acontinuous basis.fixed and205

Gilbert (1980:350-352)significance of researchmembers of the surveillanceaspects:points out the necessity andthat must be undertaken by allteam.The following are important(a) There should be a decision as to the type of vehicles,equipment and apparatus to be used.(b) The utilization of code numbers, hand signals, modes ofsummoning aid and the way the surveillant is dressedshould be decided in advance.(c)It is essential that each surveillant should be briefedon what is expected of him and he should be fullyinformed about the traffic conditions to be kept undersurveillance.(d)Intensive prior research should be undertaken on thetraffic pattern and those participating in it.(e) Surveillants must be carefully selected. Trafficofficers must understand the traffic surroundings andthink quickly. The ability to observe and rememberaccurately and patience for long periods are alsoessential.(f)It is essential that all surveillance activities andprocedures must be planned and co-ordinated according tothe target envisaged.The objectives determine the sUrveillance techniques to beused and the following techniques are frequently used:206

* Stationary surveillanceIt is the most common in the study of traffic patterns and forspeeding. Traffic officers use a fixed surveillance postsuch as a parked car. This stationary position enables thetraffic officer to take photographs which will be used assupporting evidence.It also permits the use of otherspecialized apparatus (Gilbert, 1980:352; O'Hara, 1976:200).* Mettler (1977:170) maintains that mobile surveillance or"tailing" is the technique used to observe moving vehicles andindividuals. It may be done on foot, in a vehicle oraircraft (Gilbert, 1980:351).In vehicle tailing one or morevehicles or motorcycles may be used to tail a suspect vehicle.The kind of tailing using motorcycles is frequently used bythe Empangeni municipality traffic officers. Footsurveillance places heavy demands on manpower.5.5.5 Regulative activitiesThese activities are the furtherance of traffic flow andparking control. It is for this reason that traffic officersin Empangeni and Richards Bay issue spot fine citations interms of the Criminal Procedure Act (South Africa, 1977:section 341). These notices are issued in respect of parkingoffences. Traffic offenders are permitted to pay spot fines.The control of parking is problematic for traffic officerssince it demands the use of discretion, degrees of toleranceand selective law enforcement. At the same time the vehicledrivers have the following parking rights:v(a)the right to maximum utilization with regard to the timefactor;207

(b)the right to convenience which implies easy parking, easyexit from parking space and unimpeded entry into thetraffic flow; and(c) the right to a parking space that gratifies therequirements of immediate availability and accessibility.Parking control imposes certain restrictions on drivers withregard to time, place, method and purpose of parking. Thespace is reduced if parking is not controlled. certaindrivers may monopolize parking spaces for the whole day,action which deprives others of their parking rights.It should be noted that sometimes parking is a controversialissue. controversies surround different ideas about when,how and how long parking should be permitted. For instance,the dealers require facilities directly in front of theirbusinesses with special zones for loading and unloading ofgoods whereas the buying pUblic wants facilities nearbusinesses. There are those members of the public who thinkthat they should not be hampered by parking regulationswhereas other members of the public regard parking facilitiesin front of their homes or businesses as being there for theirown use. It is therefore possible that a driver may claimthat he had not parked illegally.anThe aim of parking regulations is to ensure the best use ofavailable parking facilities within the limits of existingroad traffic legislation. It is thus essential for trafficofficers that they mustrestrictions.enforce parking regulations and208

5.6 SELECTIVE TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENTBasically, selective traffic law enforcement is a qualitymeasure based upon the principle of deploying a sufficientnumber of traffic officers in an area where a particulartraffic offence has resulted in alarge number of trafficaccidents so as to prevent this particular type of trafficoffence (Waldron, 1980:120; Wilson & }'fcLaren, 1977:452-453;Schultz & Hunt, 1990:183). For instance, in the magisterialdistrict of Lower Umfolozi where drivers have committednumerous traffic offences and thus causing numerous trafficaccidents, traffic officers will be alert for these trafficoffences and will issue written notices in terms of theCriminal Procedure Act (South Africa, 1977: Section 56).within a short period of time the average driver will becomeaware of what is being done and as a result, will be carefulnot to commit the traffic offence. The enforcement effortsare applied at specific times and places. One of the mostcommon methods of selective traffic law enforcement is the useof devices to compute vehicle speeds to deter those driverswho are speeding excessively. It is quite obvious to driversto be alert that traffic law is being strictly enforced whenthey pass the conspicuous parked traffic officer's vehicle,with its speed measuring device in view.Selective traffic law enforcement further maximizes the properallocation and distribution of traffic officers. Goodselective traffic law enforcement can provide the trafficorganizations in Lower Umfolozi magisterial district withconsiderable information, which, when properly analysed,yields significant results concerning the causes and nature oftraffic offences and traffic accidents, trends, etc. Fromthese data, the traffic officers can and must take remedialsteps to further eliminate or reduce traffic offences and209

traffic accidents. This remedial process functions in twoways: traffic education and traffic engineering. It shouldbe noted that traffic organizations do not possess all theresources for combating all traffic offences committed at alltimes and in all places. This implies that traffic officerscannot be available everywhere at the same time. Thistherefore justifies selective traffic law enforcement1977:162-163).(Hale,The most effective way in which traffic law enforcement couldbe achieved is by the implementation of selective trafficpatrolling (Weston, 1978:118). Potgieter (1983:9) definesselective traffic patrolling as a supplementary, specializedaccident - prevention technique in which traffic officers aretemporarily concentrated to direct all efforts at thereduction or elimination of traffic offences and trafficaccidents in selected areas of high incidence. Although itis not the aim of this research to show the positivecorrelation between the number of arrests and decrease in thenumber of traffic offences and accidents, it is obvious thatintensified selective traffic patrolling is likely to reducetraffic offences and accident rates. Booth (1980:200)states: "The very presence of an enforcement unit will deterlaw violators without any further action by the unit." Thesuccess of selective traffic patrolling is contingent upon therole played by discretion and tolerance.5.6.1 DiscretionIt is difficult to carry out proper traffic control withoutdiscretion. Discretion refers to consideration, goodjUdgement, the freedom to make decisions and the ability toform a jUdgement (More, 1975:81). Discretion must not beconfused with discrimination or differentiated traffic210

patrolling and should never be influenced by class or racialdifferences which would violate the principle of equalitybefore the law.The entire system of traffic justice will beplaced in an unfavourable light if the use of discretion isimproper. According to Van Heerden (1976:53-56) discretioncovers a wide spectrum.5.6.1.1 Discretion and the lawActions specifically prohibited cannot be dealt with in adiscretionary way. Discretion must be applied in the spiritof the law. The non-action or action must be in line withthe final aim of the traffic law.5.6.1.2 The victim's discretionDiscretionary action begins with the victim. In certaininstances the traffic officers may rely upon descriptions bythe public to help them determine whether a traffic offencehas been committed or not. The decision to report a trafficoffence can be influenced by various factors:* disinterestedness;* private settlement;* lack of involvement;* time-consuming legal actions;* traffic officers' incapacity to prevent traffic offencesand traffic accidents;* negative attitude of traffic officers;211

* triviality of traffic matters; and* ulterior motives such as to derive private advantage fromreporting the traffic offence.5.6.1.3 Institutional discretionInstitutional discretion refers to administrative policyconcerning priorities and timing of action. Theadministrative policy may be described as one of either totalor passive law enforcement. It should be noted that totaltraffic law enforcement is impossible. The following are thefactors influencing institutional discretion:(a)scope of traffic problems;(b)availability of traffic personnel and resources;(c)the seriousness of the traffic threat;(d)the public and authorities might insist on efficientaction; and(e)regular revision of administrative policy to adapt todynamic circumstances.5.6.1.4 Line discretionIn most hierarchical structures discretion decreases from thehighest levels to the very lowest. Discretionary traffic lawenforcement is in contrast with this arrangement for it is theline functionary who most often has to decide whether toexercise discretion or not. His jUdgment will be stronglyaffected by the following factors:212

* ambiguous court procedures, light penalization of trafficoffenders, court decisions;* inadequate knowledge concerning the elements of trafficoffences;* public indifference; and* the dangers of the situation in which he finds himself.5.6.2 Tolerance5.6.2.1 Offence toleranceIt is a specific problem confronting traffic officers.are conflicting viewpoints:Therethere are traffic officers whobelieve that road traffic legislation should be enforced outto the letter of the law and that nolatitude should beallowed to traffic offences whereas other traffic officersbelieve that traffic legislation should allow moreand that alatitudetraffic offender should not be prosecuted unless hehas committed a traffic offence which is a threat and dangerto other road users (Brandstatter & Hyman, 1971:454). ThepUblic may interpret the following actions as forms oftolerance if the offence is not regarded as serious enough tojustify penalization:(a)maladministration in dealing with traffic cases;(b)inefficient processing of summonses; and(c)different interpretations of road traffic legislationwhich result in failure to prosecute traffic offenders.213

Such action may stimulate further commission of trafficoffences and prosecutions for similar offences may even evokeaccusations and prejudices.5.6.2.2 Enforcement toleranceIt refers to the public's acceptanceenforcement activities at any given periodby the following factors:of traffic lawand is influenced* the temperament of the pUblic, community and the media;* the reputation of the traffic law enforcementorganizations;* the measure of respect, support and understandinginspired by traffic officers; and* by unpopular traffic officer's action.The notion of selective traffic law enforcement should causethe vehicle driver to believe in the omnipresence of trafficofficers and that if he commits acaught and ultimately penalized.traffic offence he will be5.7PROBLEMS SURROUNDING TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT /Thevehicle driver is the basic problem surrounding trafficlaw enforcement. The greatest problem in the magisterialdistrict of Lower Umfolozi is the shortage of trafficofficers. As a result of this problem, traffic officers areunable to patrol their areas adequately. Traffic officershave to apply traffic laws which sometimes are vague andconfusing. Traffic laws may be complicated and indistinct.214

The interpretation of traffic legislation may differ betweenthe road users, traffic officers and the legislator. Thisdifferential interpretation is influenced by the followingfactors:* administrative pOlicy;* tolerance and discretion;* personnel differences;* political pressure; and* the interpretation of the magistrate's court whichdiffers sometimes from that of traffic officers.social norms and values have also contributed to the negativeattitude towards traffic law enforcement. The pUblicbelieves in freedom of individuals whereas traffic lawsrestrict this freedom by penalizing members of the public whoviolate traffic laws (Cloete & Conradie, 1984:97). Driverssee these restrictions as efforts to hamper their freedom ofmovement. The use of unmarked vehicles by traffic officersis not accepted by the public.Traffic officers in the magisterial district of Lower Umfoloziexpressed concern with regard to the following problems:(a)vehicle drivers furnish false names and addresses;(b)unlicensed drivers use false drivers' licences,(c)aggressiveness of male drivers;215

(d)negative perception of traffic officers by the pUblic;(e)traffic officers feel that they are not accepted as humanbeings;(f) the public sometimes does not understand the rationalefor traffic law enforcement;(g) the hostile attitude of Black passengers in a taxi (theydislike being delayed by a traffic officer);(h) in most instances motorcyclists do not stop on theinstructions of a traffic officer and traffic officersare unlikely to pursue them;(i) magistrates are sometimes not in favour of issuingwarrants of arrest where drivers are fined with smallamounts, for example, RSO or RI00;(j)the magistrates do not regard traffic offences as seriousexcept reckless or negligent driving and driving whileunder the influence of alcohol or a drug having anarcotic effect;(k) the traffic officer testifying in court appears as anaccused who is being tried for "committing a trafficoffence"; and(1) stock grazing (probably due to drought) along pUblicroads is problematic to the traffic in that itcontributes to traffic accidents and collisions.216

5.8 SUMMARYTraffic law enforcement is the specialist function of theindividual traffic officer which puts him and his trafficorganization in the spotlight. The primary aim of trafficlaw enforcement is to maintain traffic order by eliminating orreducing traffic conflict. The nature of traffic lawenforcement comprises two basic components: the structural andthe functional. It is important that the public must be madeaware of the functional components of traffic control,especially regarding proactive and reactive traffic lawenforcement. Traffic control in the magisterial district ofLower Umfolozi is effected by three traffic organizations:Natal Provincial Administration (based at Empangeni),Empangeni municipality traffic department and Richards Baymunicipality traffic department.I ,Traffic officers carry out various functions such asadministrative, executive, supervision, surveillance andregulation. Selective traffic law enforcement is predicatedupon the notion that vehicle drivers and the public must knowand understand traffic laws and that traffic officers areeverywhere. Selective traffic law enforcement is simply theassignment of traffic officers on specific problem areas.The public should be apprised in nearly every instance of thereasons for selecting a given traffic problem for intensifiedtraffic law enforcement.The success of selective traffic patrolling depends also onthe part played by discretion and tolerance. The trafficofficers should recognize that there are complex and diverseproblems surrounding traffic law enforcement.217

CHAPTER 6PENALIZATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS6.1 INTRODUCTIONThe rationale of traffic law revolves around three concepts:traffic offence, guilt and penalization. Upon conviction ofthe traffic offender, the court must first determine the kindof sentence to be imposed. Sentence therefore impliespenalization of the traffic offender.Deciding upon anappropriate sentence is one of the most difficult tasks facing'.the jUdicial officer. The way in which the jUdicial officerexercises his powers is a measure of the spiritualcivilization of a community. It is measured not by itsharshness or lenience,but by traffic justice and efficacy.The jUdicial officer must not be emotionally or negativelydisposed towards the traffic offender.Penalization must besuited both to the traffic crime and traffic offender; it mustbe fair to both the traffic offender and to society and shouldbe permeated by a measure of clemency.The concepts traffic offence, guilt and penalization symbolizethe three basic problems of substance in traffic law:(a)what conduct should be designated as criminal?;(b) what determinations must be made before a motor vehicledriver can be found to have committed a traffic offence?;and218

(c) what should be done with motor vehicle drivers who arefound to have committed traffic· offences? The answersthat alegal system gives to the first of these questionscomprise "traffic conduct norms"of traffic legislation:for instance, do not obstruct traffic or drive whileunder the influence of liquor. The answers that thelegal system gives to the third question comprise thesanctions of its traffic law: if a driver is found tohave committed atraffic offence, he or she will bepenalized in various ways, for example, they may bewhipped, imprisoned, fined, etc.The second question isdependent and instrumental: in order to get from (a) to(c) in a traffic case, a legal system must provide somecriteria for satisfying (b).The objective of thischapter is to examine the penalization of trafficoffenders in the magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi.6.2 THE MEANING OF "PENALIZATION"Traffic crime is the primary norm and penalization is thesanction. Traffic crime without penalization is illegal(Packer, 1968:19). Traffic crime is simply conduct that isforbidden by traffic law and to which certain consequences,called penal.ization, will apply on the occurrence of statedconditions and following a stated process. The definitiongiven in chapter 1, paragraph 1.6.1, presents the standardcase of penalization as eXhibiting six characteristics:"'­ (a)Penalization must invo1ve pain or other consequencesunp1easant (Flew, 1954:292-295). It may be physicallyunpleasant as when traffic offenders are whipped and maybe psychol.ogically unpleasant as when traffic offendersare sentenced to other forms of penalization such as afine, imprisonment, etc.219

(b) Penalization must be inflicted in respect of a trafficoffence (Klepper & Nagin, 1989:721-723). There can beno question of penalization in the absence of aoffence committed by the traffic offender.trafficRabie &Strauss (1985:8-9) maintain that when we speak ofpenalization we mean the causing of suffering by someoneto someone else because the latter has been guilty of a(traffic) crime.(c) Penalization must be applied to the traffic offender.To describe the traffic offender as the person whocommitted the traffic offence is not wholly correct.Criminologically and penologically speaking, the personconcerned (the traffic offender) must be one who can beheld responsible for the commission of a (traffic) crime(Ross, 1975:13-17; Margolis, 1977:609; Packer, 1968:20).It is, however, not the aim of the researcher to give afull account of criminal responsibility. Trafficoffenders should be penalized because they areaccountable (have insight into their traffic actions);answerable (have committed traffic offences); and areculpable (they fail to offer acceptable explanationswhich would free them from answerability (Ross,1975:15-17).r-(d) Penalization must occur through human action. Flew(1954:293) opines: "Evils occurring to people as theresult of misbehaviour, but not by human agency, may becalled penalties but not punishment: thus unwantedchildren and venereal diseases may/~-the penalties of,but not the punishment for sexual promiscuity."220

For criminological and penological purposes, it istherefore necessary to limit the concept of penalizationto instances in which penalization is aimed at trafficoffences committed through human actions of trafficoffenders.(e) Any penalization inflicted on traffic offenders must bein terms of some specific authority vested in the bodywhose traffic laws have been violated. This impliesthat penalization must be imposed by the competent courtof law with relevant jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in thiscontext refers to the authority of the court to give avalid verdict and to impose a valid sentence (Hiemstra,1977:61). The magistrate's court is competent to imposeany penalty provided for in the Road Traffic Act (SouthAfrica, 1989:Section 149(7).(f) Penalization must also be imposed with specificobjectives such as to restore the imbalance caused by thecommission of (traffic) offences or to deter potential(traffic) offenders or possibly to correct theundesirable behaviour of (traffic) offenders (Rabie &Strauss, 1985:19-30; Packer, 1968:23-30; Waldron,1980:261; Reid, 1981:39-50; Duffee, 1989:15-17; Henham,1990:113-115).6.3 PENALIZATION:RATIONALEThe rationale provides the reasons or objectives forpenalizing traffic offenders. Rationale also states the casefor the question in the course of road traffic justice. Thecourt is therefore faced with the issue of why it penalizestraffic offenders. There are four penal objectives:221

* to effect retribution;* to bring about the correction of the traffic offender;**to restrain him physically so as to make it impossiblefor him to commit further traffic offences; andto deter others from similarly violating traffic laws(Reid, 1976: 492-493; Reid, 1981: 36-49; Duffee,1989:9-15; Rabie & strauss, 1985:272-275; Packer,1968:37-61; Middendorf, 1968:49).6.3.1 RetributionAccording to Davis (1983:727) a retributive justification forpenalization has three elements:* penalization is acceptable only against persons who havecommitted crimes;* the degree of penalization must be commensurate with theseverity of the traffic crime; and* the degree of penalization specified must be independentof the actual or predicted consequences of the punitiveact.It is important to distinguish the concepts of retribution andrevenge on the following two grounds:(a)the suffering that forms part of penalization is, in thecase of retribution, imposed by a third party, the court,and not by the injured party himself as in the case ofrevenge; and222

(b) a second distinction rests on the spirit in whichpenalization is imposed. Although retribution isexacted by a human agency, it must be seen as impersonalin that the person who exacts it (judicial officer), mustderive nopersonal pleasure or satisfaction in thepenalization of traffic offenders.The society demandsthat traffic offenders should be penalized because theyhave violated traffic laws. It should be noted thatrevenge as a penal objective is unjustifiable when itinfluences the spirit in which penalization is imposed:whenhatred of the traffic offender or pleasure inpenalizing him/her are present.The crux of the matteris that the spirit in which the traffic offender acceptshis sentence mayis imposed.be determined by the spirit in which itIn the end it does not really matter muchwhich of these versions of retribution is accepted for,as Packer (1968:38) observes: "The result is the same.The criminal is to be punished simply because he hascommitted a crime."6.3.2 IncapacitationIncapacitation implies the restraint of the traffic offenderin order to make it impossible for him to commit furthertraffic offences. This action is vital to the protection ofsociety (Reid, 1976:493: Rabie & strauss, 1985:24-25: Duffee,1989:12: Bing, 1990:166-167). The imposition of a prisonsentence renders the traffic offender incapable of committingtraffic offences during the period of his imprisonment.Burchell et al. (1983:73) state: "Suspension or confiscationof his driver's licence prevents him from lawfully driving amotor vehicle•.• " However, incapacitation does not seem tohave any relation with the fines most frequently imposed.However, it is worth noting that incapacitation is based upon223

the assumption and the prediction that a traffic offender is adangerous person who will probably repeat his traffic criminalbehaviour unless he is in some way restrained. Packer(1968:50-51) opines: "Baldly put, the incapacitative theory isat its strongest for those who,l.east deserving of punishment."in retributive terms, are the6.3.3 DeterrenceThat motor vehicle drivers can be deterred from traffic crimeby the existence and operation of penalization, has long beenseen as a justification and penal objective. Penalizationhas a general deterrent action. Its mere existence detersthe potential traffic offender. Deterrence involves complexnotions. It is sometimes described as having two aspects:* after-the-fact inhibition of the person being penalized,i.e. specific deterrence; and* inhibition in advance by threat or example Le. generaldeterrence (Duffee, 1989:11; Reid, 1976:492; Rabie &strauss, 1985:32; Burchell et al. 1983:74-77; Bing,1990:166).From this angle, penalization is a cautionary measure aimed atthe prevention of further traffic crime. By means ofpenalization the traffic offender is taught al.esson so thathe will. be deterred from traffic criminal behaviour.suspended sentence, for instance, is also a form of specificdeterrence. The case for the deterrent val.ue of penalizationrests on the following suppositions:A(a)that motor vehicle drivers think before they act;224\

(b) that the disadvantages of penalization always outweighthe advantages of traffic offence commission;(c)that penalization inspires fear; and(d) that penalization inevitably follows the violation ofroad traffic legislation: but this is not always the casedue to the notion that traffic crimes are not alwaysdetected,not all traffic offenders are apprehended andnot all are penalized.If it is assumed that trafficoffenders generally bank on the likelihood of getting offscot-free, it is also assumed that the deterrent value ofpenalization is directly proportional to itsinevitability (Grupp, 1971:171-173). The deterrenteffect of disqualification or suspension or cancellationor endorsement of a driver's licence is obvious. Thedriver's licence is often a matter of economic and/orsocial life or death to its holder.Disqualification should therefore not be applied lightly.However,it would seem to be the appropriate measure fordealing with the traffic offender whose behaviourconstitutes a serious threat to road safety.6.3.4 correction .1r:The most immediately appealing justification for penalizationis the claim that it may be used to prevent traffic crime byso changing the personality of the traffic offender that hewill conform to the dictates of the Road Traffic Act andRegulations; in other words, . by correcting him (Little,1970:256). It follows from this traffic offender-orientedaspect of the corrective ideal that the intensity and durationof penalization are measured by what is thought to be requiredin order to change the traffic offender's personality and225

attitude (Duffee, 1989:14). This implies that the actiontaken in response to traffic offence commission is aimed atcorrecting the habits and improving the capability of thetraffic offender. As a result of penalization, the trafficoffender should be dissuaded from repeating the trafficoffence. From the wide range of penalties and correctivemeasures which are available, it is believed that a judicialofficer can construct a total penalty which has not only theeffect of -justly penalizing the individual traffic offenderbut of encouraging the future observance of road trafficlegislation.It is therefore clear that the essential prerequisite forcorrection is that the traffic offender must find himself,discover a new orientation and insight. Seen against thisbackground, correction is then possible when the trafficoffender accepts the principle of comparison with regard tohisfher penalization, namely that penalization is deservedSUffering imposed for the commission of traffic offences. Itis for this reason that retribution is a prerequisite forcorrection. In other words, the traffic offender cannot besubjected to correctional services without first undergoingsome form of retribution (penalization). The correctiveideal is motivated by humanitarianism (Grupp, 1971:256).Efforts at correction should be aimed primarily at the trafficoffender's social and psychological re-adjustment.The mainobjective is to change the traffic offender's attitudes and tohelp him cope with circumstances,gain insight into his ownmotivations, re-orient his feelings and achieve aself-control.measure of226

6.4 THE TRAFFIC OFFICER IN COURTTraffic offence commission sets the traffic justice system inmotion. Penalization of traffic offenders is contingent uponthe efficiency and effectiveness of traffic law enforcementofficers. It is therefore of crucial importance for theresearcher to highlight the role of the traffic officer incourt because traffic law enforcement forms the very first"component" of the traffic criminal justice process. Trafficofficers learn early that issuing a written notice to appearin court is the simplest part of their work. The moredifficult and challenging task is testifying in court (Schultz& Hunt, 1990:171; Hand et al. 1980:65; Dienstein, 1974:143;Limpert, 1984:561; Stuckey, 1979:341). A hearing orcourtroom trial is a very important test of traffic officer'sreal competence. The usefulness of a traffic officer isimpaired when he is a poor witness. A witness can lendcredit or discredit to his testimony by his behaviour incourt, regardless of the substance of his testimony. Atraffic case may require weeks or even months of painstakingeffort and preparation on the part of traffic officers. Itshould be noted that the traffic case can be lost in court dueto improper presentation, attitude or appearance of a trafficofficer who does not prepare himself properly to act as acreditable witness. The courtroom should command the respectof the traffic officer. His conduct in the courtroom and inthe areas of close proximity to the courtroom should reflectthis attitUde. A traffic officer shOUld not attract undueattention by his behaviour or otherwise act unprofessionallyin the courtroom. Courtroom proceedings are serious andshould be treated as such. Traffic officers are facilitatorsof traffic justice.227

6.4.1 The traffic officer as a witnessA witness is a person who swears an oath or affirmation totell the truth, takes a witness stand and provides testimony(Waldron, 1980:271; Stuckey, 1979: 39) • A traffic officerbecomes a witness because of having knowledge about the factsof a traffic offence. This knowledge have been acquiredseeing the motor-vehicle driver committing the trafficoffence. In the -case of traffic offences, traffic officersprovide testimony on behalf of the state and they may becross-examined. The oath serves to make perjury (lying bywitnesses) punishable (Waldron, 1980:271). A traffic officerdoes not always have a choice whether to appear as a witness.Any traffic officer with valuable information that may assistthe court in arriving at the correct decision may be compelledto be a witness (stuckey, 1979:67). Official notification toappear in court as a witness is by subpoena.The effective testifying in court of asignificant for three reasons:traffic officer is(a)The traffic officer's function of proper role-fulfilmentis of crucial importance for a sound traffic criminaljustice system. If the traffic officer performsinadequately, traffic justice may not ensue and thussubverting the jUdicial process.Cb)If the motor vehicle driver is convicted and penalized,it could be a learning experience for him that mayprevent future commission of traffic offences.traffic offender WhoTheis found not guilty because thetraffic officer testified poorly may feel vindicated andmay repeat the traffic law violation and lose respect forthe jUdicial process.228

(c)If the traffic officer testifies well in court, he willfeel good about himself and will be willing to go throughthe experience again. The traffic officer who feelsfoolish as a result of his court appearance will bedisinclined to enforce traffic law as diligently in orderto avoid another unpleasant court experience. Trafficofficers should understand that they are facilitators oftraffic justice with regard to the penalization oftraffic offenders.6.4.1.1 The traffic officer as a lay or ordinary witnessstuckey (1979:70) points out that there are two categories ofwitnesses:the lay or ordinary witness; and* the expert witness.Witnesses are generally limited by arule of evidence totestify to what they have observed. The lay witness (laymeans anybody being not an expert) is a person who has somepersonal knowledge about the facts of the case and who hasbeen called upon to relate this information in court (Stuckey,1979:70; Waldron, 1980:260). A lay witness can expressopinions if they are supported by factual material that isrecognized as being in the realm of common experience.Traffic officers will usually fall within the category of thelay witness. The lay witness is permitted to testify incourt about facts only and may not state personal opinionsexcept in few instances. The restrictions on opinions orconclusions may be most frustrating to the witness.Stuckey(1979:70) opines: "People get into the habit of speaking inthis vein, and when not permitted to do so on the stand, a229

witness becomes virtually tongue-tied. As a result, themanner or method in which a witness relates informationbecomes very important to the trial proceeding."It should be noted that there is opinion testimony of laywitnesses. An opinion refers to an inference or conclusiondrawn from a fact known or something observed (stuckey,1979:73). As it relates to the testimony of a trafficofficer, it would be an inference drawn from something thetraffic officer observed during the commission of a trafficoffence. A traffic officer who has observed a moving vehicleis permitted to state an opinion as to the speed of thevehicle. It is not necessary that the traffic officer shouldhave driven the vehicle (or if any witness other than atraffic officer should be able to drive) in order to state anoplnlon as to the speed. It is proper for a traffic officerto state that a vehicle was going very fast or that it wasgoing faster than other vehicles. However, it is doubtful ifa witness with no experience in the operation of a motorvehicle could give an opinion as to the approximate kilometresper hour. A lay witness may not give an opinion about speedmerely from observing skid marks, as this falls within thepurview of the expert witness (stuckey, 1979:74-75; Clark,1982:130-131; Hand et al. 1980:231).6.4.1.2 Expert testimonyAffidavits or certificates are frequently used as vehicles foradducing expert testimony. The opinion of an expert, in thesame way as that of a layman, is admissible if it is relevantin the legal sense. Relevance in this regard means that thewitness is by reason of his special knowledge or skill betterqualified to draw an inference than the judicial officer (DuToit et al. 1991:24-27). Relevance should not be subjected230

to the tyranny of categories or exceptions; it is a flexibleand robust concept that is based on logic, common sense andexperience.Du Toit et al. (1991:24-27) maintain that there are no fixedclasses of expert witnesses. It is therefore imprecise tothink of some witnesses as "experts" and others as"non-experts." Actually, every witness who is asked toexpress an opinion is an expert. The mere fact that he hasbeen invited to speak on the matter assumes some degree ofexperiential skill (Du Toit et al. 1991:24-27). It isnecessary, for practical purposes, to distinguish between twokinds of experiential capacity:(a)that derived from general experience, which is common toall people; and(b) that derived from special experience, which is theproduct of some training, familiarity or preparation (DuToit et al. 1991:24-28).The significance of thisdistinction is that special experiential capacity must besatisfactorily established before the testimony of theexpert witness may be received.It is the duty of thejUdicial officer to decide whether the witness issUfficiently qualified to assist the court.The failureof an expert witness to furnish reasons for his op1n1onmay affect only the weight and not the admissibility ofhis evidence. It should be noted that failure to givereasons may leave evidence without any weight and as suchmay be irrelevant and therefore inadmissible (Du Toit etal. 1991:24-28).231

with the great advancement of traffic science, ajudicialofficer may be called upon to make jUdgements about matters ofwhich they have no personal knowledge about the facts, but theconclusion which has to be drawn from those facts may requiresomeone skilled in the field. An expert, therefore, is aperson allowed to testify in court and whose opinions areconsidered evidence (Limpert, 1984:561~ Stuckey, 1979:77~Waldron, 1980:260~ Dienstein, 1974:140-141). The expert mustbe skilled in his-profession, have experience related to thesubject area under consideration and must be educatedSUfficiently to be able to correlate facts.measureA significantof expertise is that the expert exhibits knowledgethat is beyond and above that of the average person (stuckey,1979:77~ Limpert, 1984:561). According to Stuckey (1979:77)the expert witness does not have to be aeducational background or training.person of greatcontrary to this view,Limpert (1984:561) opines: "This measure may be establishedby education such as abachelor's, master's or doctoral degreein mechanical engineering, experience in industry or research,relevant publications by the expert, and particUlar tests andanalyses conducted in connection with the accident underconsideration."There are different kinds of expert witnesses (Stuckey,1979:81-87). However, the following are the specializationareas in which experts appear in criminal/traffic cases:* document examiner~* skid-mark and speed experts;* bookmaking and narcotics~* laboratory experts~232

* footprint (shoe-print) experts;* experts in criminal justice, psychology and psychiatry;* polygraph examiners;* experts on obscenity;* photographers;* voice-print experts;* autopsy surgeon; and* fingerprint experts.6.4.2 Principles of effective testimonyThe traffic officer plays a paramount role in the successfulprosecution and penalization of traffic offenders. Beingnervous about testifying at a trial of a traffic offender isnatural. witnesses fear being embarrassed especially duringcross-examination; being contradicted by another witness; andbeing unable to remember an important aspect. The trafficofficer as a human being is not immune to these pitfalls and anewly-appointed traffic officer is apprehensive about a firstcourt appearance. Even the most experienced traffic officermay feel some tension. Most of these fears can be eliminatedor greatly reduced by observing basic principles related totestifying effectively in court (Stuckey, 1979:345-355; Handet al. 1980:66-79).233

6.4.2.1 TruthThe traffic officer should speak the absolute truth. Lyingwill occur when a traffic officer testifies to what he knowsis not true. The traffic officer who lies in court isviolating (traffic) justice and perhaps he is worse than thetraffic offender he is apprehending. It is probable that thetraffic officer who lies in court may be trapped by his ownlie. The purpose of testifying is to assist the court atarriving at the true facts so that a just decision can bereached which will result in the penalization of the trafficoffender (Hand et al. 1980:67-68).6.4.2.2 RealityThe notion that a traffic officer should be reality-centredimplies that reality and the traffic Officer's viewpoint ofthe traffic offence should be identical (Hand et al.1980:66-67). In every traffic offender's trial there arethree factors:(a)the traffic officer's viewpoint.(b)the traffic offender's viewpoint. and(c)reality which is comprised of the facts of the trafficoffence that are untouched by the traffic officer's ortraffic offender's perceptions, judgements orinterpretations. During the trial reality may "movearound": it may reside in either the traffic officer ortraffic offender or may be excluded from both. Theefficient traffic officer is therefore reality-centred.Honest mistakes are made by everyone and are caused bybeing distracted, misunderstanding and normal errors 'in234

jUdgement. Traffic officers who are reality-centredpresent facts in a clear and unbiased manner. They donot perceive themselves as "winning" or "losing" in court(Hand et al. 1980:67). They understand that it is onlytraffic justice that will win or lose.6.4.2.3 PreparationThe traffic officer must refresh his memory about all thefacts relevant to the traffic offence and he should notmemorize his notes but should use them as a memory refresher(Dienstein, 1974:146; Stuckey, 1979:342-343). preparation alsoincludes anticipation of the questions to be asked and in thisinstance the traffic officer may assume the role of anattorney defending the traffic offender. According to Handet al. (1980:69-71) there are three phases of preparation fora court appearance:(a)the first phase occurs before the traffic stop is made;(b)the second phase occurs during the traffic stop; and(c) the third phase occurs between the issuing of a writtennotice (Annexure C) and court appearance of a trafficoffender.6.4.2.4 Answering questionsThe traffic officer should answer questions put to himsuccintly, directly and adequately (Hand et al. 1980:71;Stuckey, 1979:350-352; Dienstein, 1974:146-147). If he doesthe contrary, he will be causing confusion, frustration and235

will be raising the suspicion that he is not on a solidfoundation. There are three mistakes that can be made bytraffic officers with regard to answering questions in court:* the first mistake is over-answering the question whichimplies giving more information than is required:* the second mistake is under-answering the question: and* the third mistake is not answering the question asked.6.4.2.5 DispassionateThe traffic officer must communicate with ideas and not withfeelings. This implies that the traffic officer shouldremain dispassionate (Hand et al. 1980: 73). Beingdispassionate is necessary for good testimony in court. Thebiggest enemy of dispassion in court is anger. Anger isoften the response of an insecure traffic officer who feelsthreatened and anger clouds jUdgement. It is thereforeessential that a traffic officer should not become angry asthis will tarnish his image.6.4.2.6 Admission of ignorance and mistakesIt should be noted that no one is perfect in a court trial.Failure to admit ignorance and mistakes is dishonesty and willimpede traffic justice (Hand et al. 1980:74-75). The trafficofficer who admits ignorance on a particular issue or to haveerred will show himself to be a trustworthy and secure personwhose testimony can be relied upon.236

6.4.2.7 Non-verbal communicationThe traffic officer should be aware of the message he sends toothers without uttering words (Hand et al. 1980:75-77). Thusa traffic officer should be aware of the ways he canunintentionally communicate messages to the court. Thefollowing are the most important aspects in this regard:(a) appearance: the traffic ~ officer should be well-dressedand if he testifies in uniform, the uniform should bepressed and clean and his shoes shined:(b) Vocabulary: certain words the traffic officer uses canconvey a non-verbal message and the words he uses shouldnot distract from his testimony:(c)tone of voice: traffic officers should not be overbearingby speaking loud in court and they should not appearinsecure when they speak too quietly or unclearly: and(d)posture: traffic officers' posture should inspireconfidence and they should stand or sit in a way thatconnote that they are relaxed and yet alert.6.4.2.8 Preparation of traffic case by public prosecutorIt is of crucial significance that the traffic officer shouldassist the public prosecutor to prepare a traffic case becausethe traffic officer has witnessed the traffic offence and hasinterrogated the traffic offender (Hand et al. 1980:77-78) •It can be ideal for the traffic officer if he can assist thepublic prosecutor by writing a memo concerning the salient237

(\ /l",-(j)facts of the traffic offence and his impression of the trafficcase and then send it to the pUblic prosecutor before he meetshim to prepare the traffic case.6.5 PENALIZATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSMagistrates obviously face a problem in deciding how toperceive the traffic offender. Redgment (1990:156) opines:"The passing of a proper and just sentence is one of the mostdifficult tasks of a trial court. The duty lies within thediscretion of the presiding officer. It is a discretion tobe exercised not arbitrarily or whimsically, but with dueregard to precedent." It is worth mentioning that----magistrates are also motorists. Since the penalization oftraffic offenders is pre-eminently a matter for the discretionof the magistrate's (trial) court, the researcher deems it fitto give a brief account of discretion in penalizing trafficoffenders. Discretion in the penalization of trafficoffenders can be seen in tables 6.10 - 6.27 which illustratedisparities in penalization.6.5.1 Discretion in penalization (sentencing)The concept of discretion is at homein only one sort ofcontext: when someone is in general charged with making---- -decisions subjec~to standards set by a particular authority.Basically there f a:se five factors affecting the way jUdicialofficers make decisions:(a)there are social, personal and jUdicial characteristics;(b)attitudes towards the disposal of a traffic case;

(c)perceptions of the nature of the traffic offence and thecharacteristics of traffic offenders;(d)the type of information considered relevant and the wayin which it is interpreted; and(e)the controls and constraints exercised either formally bytraffic law through local sentencing norms, grouppressures or traditions in court practice (Hood,1972:22-27).It is submitted that the nature and scope of judicialdiscretion can best be understood through an understanding ofthe "surrounding belt of restriction. 11 The CriminalProcedure Act No. 51 of 1977 (as amended) prescribes the rangeof sentences that must be imposed on offenders in general andthe Road Traffic Act No. 29 of 1989 (as amended) prescribespenalization of traffic offenders. The road trafficlegislation excludes the magistrates' court discretionentirely by making mandatory penalization for specifiedtraffic offences. Traffic legislation on the whole providesthe outer limits of discretion in penalizing traffic offendersand this is the skeletal framework of the "surrounding belt ofrestriction" (Lund, 1979:204). For instance, in the case ofwhipping male traffic offenders, the number of strokes to beawarded is in the discretion of the magistrate's court, andthe discretion must be exercised in accordance with the ruleswhich have been judicially laid down.It should be noted that rules for purposes of sentencingdiscretion are mandatory and· principles for purposes ofsentencing discretion are not mandatory (Lund, 1979:207).For instance, a principle such as "first offenders should notbe sent to prison" does not mean that no first offender should239

ever be sent to prison (Du Toit et al. 1991:28-16).Principles give direction to the exercise by the magistrate'scourt of its discretion when penalizing traffic offenders.The way.to makenecessary discretion tolerable is to developby experience principles of exercise of discretion and torecognize that because there is no rule in the strict sense itdoesnot follow that the court has unlimited power of doingwhat it chooses on any grounds or on no grounds.It isproper for the court to reach a reasoned decision in the lightof the prevailing principles (Lund, 1979:209). The CriminalProcedure Act (South Africa, 1977:Section 57(5)"magistrate of the district or area concerned",refers to thewhereassection 57(7) of the criminal Procedure Act (South Africa,1977) refers to the "judicial officer presiding at the courtin question."By this distinction the legislature intendedto cater for districts which have only one magistrate as wellas districts where there are more than one magistrate.magisterial district of Lower Umfolozi has a chief magistrateand additional magistrates. The same distinction ismaintained by the researcher in the discussion of penalizationof traffic offenders.The6.5.2 Nature of penalizationThe researcher identified the following types of penalization:* admission of guilt,* fine,* fine or imprisonment,* imprisonment,240

* suspended sentence;* deferred fine;* spot fine;* fine or imprisonment plus imprisonment suspended;* fine or imprisonment of which half is suspended;* whipping;* periodical imprisonment;* fine and imprisonment suspended;* treatment in a rehabilitation centre;* cancellation of a driver's licence;* endorsement of a driver's licence;* fine for failure to appear in court; and* cautioned and discharged (actually, this is notpenalization but merely a warning).It is not the intention of the researcher to give a detailedaccount of all the above-mentioned types of penalization.The researcher has therefore arbitrarily selected to discusscertain types of penalization.241

Table 6.1 presents the frequency distribution of the nature ofpenalization of traffic offenders. Likewise, figure 6.1portrays the same data in a graphical form.TABLE 6.1 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE NATURE OFPENALIZATION OF 4771 TRAFFIC OFFENDERS FOR THEPERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990NATURE OF PENALIZATIONFREQUENCY(N) (%)ADMISSION OF GUILT 3457 71,65SPOT FINE 563 11,67FINE, DEFERRED FINE 498 10,32FINE OR IMPRISONMENT 170 3,52SUSPENDED SENTENCE 42 0,87OTHER* 95 1,97TOTAL 4825** 100,00242

FIGURE 6.1NATURE OF PENALIZATIONOF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS4000N -------------u 3500MBE R 30000F------------T 2500RAF2000FIC0 1500FFEN 1000DERS 500oAG. SF. Fine Df. FI. SS. Oth.NATURE OF PENALIZATIONAG~Admission of Gunt Df=Deferred FineF/::=Fine or Imprisonment SF=Spof FineSS=Suspended Senfence Olh.=Ofher243

*OTHER: For purposes of this table, the researcher collapseddifferent types of penalization in the "other" category andthis category refers to the following forms of penalization:(a)imprisonment=4(h)corporal punishment/whipping=3(c) treatment in a rehabilitation centre = 3(d)periodical imprisonment=1(e)cancellation of driver's licence=1(f)endorsement of drivers' licences=9(g)failure to appear in court=29(h)cautioned and discharged=45TOTAL N for "other"=95** Total N (4825) does not tally with total N=4771 (actualtotal number of traffic offenders penalized) due to the factthat in certain instances traffic offenders committed morethan one traffic offence and were thus penalized accordingly.244

6.5.2.1 Admission of guiltWelman (1971:46) defines admission of gU~lt as follows:"Die begrip "skulderkenning" beteken presies wat die naam tekenne gee, naamlik dat die beskuldigde, indien, sy skuld virdie oortreding erken, die aangegewe bedrag kan betaal om homsodoende te onthef van die verpligting om in die hof teverskyn. Die bedrag van die skulderkenning wat aanvaar magword, stem gewoonlik ooreen met die bedrag .wat oorsponklik opdie afkoopboetekaartjie aangegee is, d.w.s. die bedrag wat diehof waarskynlik vir die oortreding sou opla." It is evidentfrom table 6.1 that the majority of traffic offenders paid anadmission of guilt fine and these are accounted for in 3457(71,65%) of the traffic cases.Written notices (Annexure C) to appear in court are issued interms of section 56 of the Criminal Procedure Act (SouthAfrica, 1977). The admission of guilt and payment of finewithout court appearance is done in terms of section 57 of theCriminal Procedure Act (South Africa, 1977). A writtennotice is handed by the traffic officer to the accused. Theaccused may, without appearing in court, admit his/her guiltin respect of the traffic offence(s) in question by paying thefine stipulated either to the clerk of the magistrate's court(Empangeni) or Empangeni or Richards Bay police stations.The written notice stipulates the date upon which an admissionof guilt fine is payable. The written notice is surrenderedupon payment. The public prosecutor has the power to reducethe fine. The clerk of the court is responsible for filingall written notices he/she has received from traffic officersaccording to the dates of trial of traffic offenders.245

Warrants of arrest are issued by the magistrate(s) for trafficoffenders who fail to appear in court for trial. It shouldbe noted that traffic offenders are not afforded opportunityto pay admission of guilt fine in respect of serious trafficoffences such as driving while intoxicated. It is also worthmentioning that the chief magistrate is authorized to fixmaximum fines in respect of certain traffic offences committedin his area of jurisdiction (South Africa,57(5a) & 341(5).1977:SectionsThe immediate practical effect of paying anadmission of guilt fine is that the traffic offender isexcused from court appearance (Du Toit et al. 1991:8-1).There are various limitations of an admission of guilt fine(Du Toit et al. 1991:8-4). The following are some of thelimitations:(a) An admission of guilt payment of fine without courtappearance may only take place where a summons is issuedin terms of section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Act(South Africa, 1977) or where a written notice has beenhanded to the traffic offender. It should be noted thatin both instances the maximum fine is limited to R300-00.(b)The application of section 57 of the Criminal ProcedureAct (South Africa, 1977) does not imply that the statedoubts the traffic criminal's responsibility. Thepayment of an admission of guilt fine is "very often andfor various reasons an option exercised by accusedpersons in order to be rid of the worry, inconvenienceand expense attached to fighting a petty criminal chargeand not because they consider that they are in factguilty" (Du Toit et al. 1991:8-4).(c)An admission of guilt fine may not be paid where the onlycompetent sentence is imprisonment.246

(d)A judicial officer is not empowered to cancel, suspend orendorse drivers' licences in traffic cases coming beforehim on an admission of guilt. The rationale for this isthat his jurisdiction in traffic cases is limited tomonetary penalization.(e)An admission of guilt fine should not be paid in respectof serious traffic offences (the so-called "directcharges") such as driving under the influence of alcohol.(f) An admission of guilt fine cannot be paid in respect ofoffences listed in Schedule 3 of the Criminal ProcedureAct. Section 341 makes provision for the compounding ofthese offences (DU Toit et al. 1991). Compoundingconsists in unlawfully and intentionally agreeing forreward not to report or prosecute a crime other than onewhich is penalized by fine only. compounding ofoffences make it possible to pay spot fines. SchedUle 3therefore allows for compounding of the following trafficOffences:* speeding;*driving a defective motor vehicleof vehicle-related offences,paragraph 3.2.2.);(for various typessee Chapter 3,* leaving or stopping a motor vehicle where forbidden;* driving a motor vehicle at a place where and timewhen it may not be driven;* owning or driving an unlicensed motor vehicle; and247

* driving a motor vehicle with no valid driver'slicence.Such spot fines, if paid by traffic offenders, accrue toEmpangeni and Richards Bay local authorities (municipalities).6.5.2.2 FineThe fine, deferred fine and spot fine are by far the most usedform of penalization in respect of traffic offenders (SouthAfrica, 1977:Sections 287 & 341). Relatively simple toadminister fines produce cash profits for the traffic lawenforcement organizations and the state.that in 498Table 6.1 reveals(10,32%) cases, traffic offenders were allowed topay fines and deferred fines, while 563 (11,67%) trafficoffenders paid spot fines. As a deterrent its potential isundeniable. However, the present standard of living has madetraffic offenders more reluctant than before to pay fines fortraffic offences and thus deprives themselves of opportunitiesto buy assets such as houses, cars, television sets, etc.The fine is more or less under criticism for reason of thecriteria set for fixing the amount of the fine and because ofthe means employed to ensure its enforcement.It is claimed that the imposition of fines is in principleunrelated to the traffic offender's ability to pay and thatwhile not serving as an efficient deterrent as regards wealthytraffic offenders, this involves an injustice to trafficoffenders of meagre financial means (Gordon & Glaser,1991:653). Moreover, the fact that a traffic offender isunable to pay a fine may lead to his imprisonment (Rabie &Strauss, 1985:158-159). It is therefore submitted thatconsideration ought to be given not only to the trafficoffence but also to the traffic offender's financial248

circumstances. It is for this reason that in appropriatecases, traffic offenders have been accorded deferred fines(for the meaning of deferred fine, see paragraph 6.5.2.5).6.5.2.3 ImprisonmentA sentence of imprisonment is given at the discretion of thecourt. For a discussion of discretion in penalizingoffenders, see paragraph 6.5.1. It can be seen from table6.1 that a total of 170 (3,52%) traffic offenders werepenalized by either paying fines or serving terms ofimprisonment. The following commentary highlights theimportant issues pertaining to imprisonment:(a)In principle, as far as possible, a first offender is notsentenced to imprisonment, though this is not a hard andfast rule (see paragraph 6.5.1).(b)The minimum period for imprisonment is four days exceptwhere the sentence is that the offender be detained untilthe court adjourns or rises (Redgment, 1990:161; Rabie &strauss, 1985:139-140; Du Toit et al. 1991:28-20B). Itmay therefore not be imposed with another term ofimprisonment, since detention until the rising of thecourt, is also imprisonment and the traffic offender isentitled to his immediate release at the rising of thecourt.(c)There is no maximum term of imprisonment.(d)Imprisonment normally ends on the day of expiration ofthe term imposed by the court.249

5However, correctional services legislation provides forthe period to be shortened (remission of sentence) (DuToit et al. 1991:28-17).(e)Imprisonment must be unaffected by misdirection.(f)\Imprisonment shbuld not be a form of penalizationresorted to only when it is necessary to protect societyagainst traffic offenders.(g) Youth is usually a factor against imprisonment (DU Toitet al. 1991:28-16 to 28-17).(h)Illness on the part of the traffic offender can alsoinfluence the decision against imprisonment.(i) The fact that the traffic offender is a breadwinner andhas a responsibility to support his family, may also be afactor against imprisonment.(j)The nature of traffic offence is also relevant: it may beof such seriousness that the only adequate penalizationis imprisonment.6.5.2.4 Periodical imprisonmentIn periodical imprisonment the term of imprisonment may varyfrom 100 hours to 2000 hours (South Africa, 1977:Section285(1). This form of imprisonment is intended to make itpossible for the prison sentence to be served in"instalments." Colloquially this is often referred to as"week-end" penalization. The researcher interviewed thejUdicial officers (Empangeni magistrate's court). Theintention was to establish whether or not they often impose250

periodical imprisonment. Each of the jUdicial officersresponded by saying that, because there are not many trafficcases which render the imposition of periodical imprisonment,it is rarely imposed. Periodical imprisonment falls in the"other" category of table 6.1. Only one traffic offender wassentenced to periodical imprisonment (see paragraph 6.5.2).Efficient functioning of periodical imprisonment rests mainlyon the following factors:* establishment of sufficient and appropriate facilities inour correctional institutions;* decentralization of facilities so that traffic offendersshould serve periodical imprisonment in easily accessiblecorrectional institutions;* proper examination and selection of traffic offenders toundergo periodical imprisonment, preferably trafficoffenders who function reasonably normally in thecommunity, with a permanent job and a family to support;and* proper correctional supervision of the traffic offenderwill contribute to a more efficient functioning system ofperiodical imprisonment (Du Toit et a1. 1991:28-21 to28-22; Redgment, 1990:162).Ferreira (1967:511) maintains that the following factorsmust be used as a guide. in the consideration of theapplicability of periodical imprisonment:(a)periodical imprisonment is suitable for the offenderwho is not required to work during week-ends;251

l(b) the offender's drinking habits constitute anotherconsideration. If the traffic offender indulges inexcessive drinking during week-ends, periodicalimprisonment may be an appropriate sentence:(c)periodical imprisonment may not be combined withother forms of penalization such as fines orwhipping: and(d)periodical imprisonment may not be imposed for acrime for which a minimum penalization has beenprescribed.Periodical imprisonment is highly positive in that thetraffic offender is penalized without any disruption ofhis family life and since he is kept in the communitythere is no economic and labour loss. The viIjoenCommission (1976:131) gave the following opinion: "Theshock of having to serve a sentence of periodicalimprisonment often has a very beneficial effect on theoffender. It satisfies the requirement of retribution,serves as an effective deterrent in that it usually has avery sanguine deterrent effect on the offender himselfand serves as a telling deterrent to others. It alsoserves to protect the community because while in custodyduring the period the offender would be inclined tocommit offences he is prevented from indulging in hisinclinations. It6.5.2.5 Suspended sentenceA sentence may be suspended in terms of the Criminal ProcedureAct (South Africa, 1977:Section 297). The difference betweena suspended and a deferred sentence (such as deferred fines)252

is that in asuspended sentence the traffic offender issentenced to compliance with specific conditions and in caseof non-compliance he is liable to an alternative penalizationof either a fine or imprisonment or both (in the alternative)which is imposed on him at the same time as the conditions;whereas in a deferred sentence the traffic offender issentenced merely to compliance with certain conditions and inthe case of non-compliance he is called upon to re-appearbefore the court for sentencing in the alternative.Table6.1 reveals that 42 (0,87%) cases had their sentencessuspended.A sentence may be partially or wholly suspended (see AnnexureB). The researcher observed that certain traffic offendershad their sentences wholly or partially suspended for a periodnot exceeding five years. Conditions connected with asuspended sentence include the following:(a)compensation;(b)rendering service to the injured person;(c)the rendering without remuneration of social services;(d)submission to training or treatment;(e)submission to control by a probation officer;(f)attendance at or living in a centre;253

(g)good conduct; and(h) any other matter (South Africa, 1977:Section 297(a)(i);Du Toit et al. 1991:28-45; Redgment, 1990:169-170; Rabie& Strauss, 1985:368-376). Conditions connected with asuspended sentence must:* be specific;* be reasonable;* be understood by the traffic offender; and* relate to the traffic offence.It is evident from table 6.1 that the "other" forms ofpenalization category are accounted for in 95 (1,97%) cases.6.5.3 Distribution of penalizationOf all the various sections of this research, the study ofpenalization of traffic offenders was the most important andinteresting. The researcher deems it fit to present ananalysis of the distribution of penalization according totraffic offences, sex, race, age, etc.6.5.3.1 Distribution according to traffic offencesTable 6.2 presents the distribution of penalization accordingto the three types of traffic offences. Figure 6.2 renders agraphical distribution of the data contained in table 6.2.254

TABLE 6.2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATIONACCORDING TO TRAFFIC OFFENCES COMMITTED DURINGTHE PERIOD 01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990TYPE OF OFFENCEDRIVIHG OFFEllCE VEHICLE-RELATED IXlClJMEIlT mmOFFENCEOFFENCElIATDRE OFPEH!LIZATIOII (11) (%) (11) (%) (11) (%) (11) (% )AOOSSIOII OFGUILT 1483 69,82 1518 80,66 456 55,68 3457 71,65SPOT Fm 301 14,17 71 3,77 191 23,32 563 11,67FIIIE, DEFERREDFIIIE 205 9,65 159 8,45 134 16,36 498 10,32FIIIE ORIMPRISOIIllERT 56 2,64 96 5,10 18 2,20 170 3,52SUSPEllDEDSEm:IICE ro 1,88 - - 2 0,24 42 0,87OTHER 39 1,84 38 2,02 18 2,20 95 1,97TOTAL 2U4 100,00 1882 100,00 819 100,00 4825 100,00255

FIGURE 6.2PENALIZATION ACCORDING TOTRAFFIC OFFENCESN 1600uMB 1400ER12000FT 1000RAF 800FIC6001-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0FF400END 200ERS0AG.SF.Fine Df.FI.SS.Oth.NATURE OF PENALIZATIONOffences_ Driving _ Vehicle-Related !"cl DocumentAG:Admission of Guilt Df:=Deferred FineFI=:Fine or Imprisonmenf SF=Spof FineS5=Suspended Sentence Oth.=Other256

Table 6.2 shows that variant penalization in respect ofdriving offences was observed in 2124 cases, whilepenalization for committing vehicle-related offences occurredin 1882 instances. Document offence commission produced 819instances of penalization (table 6.2).Table 6.2 also reveals that an admission of guilt fine waspaid in 1483 (69,82%) cases for committing driving offences,while 301 (14,17%) traffic offenders paid spot fines.Traffic offenders were allowed to pay fines and deferred finesin 205 (9,65%) cases. A total of 56 (2,64%) cases werepenalized in the form of paying fines or serving terms ofimprisonment. Fourty (1,88%) traffic offenders had theirsentences suspended, while 39 (1,84%) cases constituted the"other" forms of penalization.A total of 1518 (80,66%) cases paid an admission of guilt finefor yehicle related offence commission. Penalization in theform of fine or deferred fine is accounted for in 159 (8,45%)cases. Seventy-one (3,77%) traffic offenders paid spotfines, While 96 (5,10%) cases were sentenced to pay fines orto serve terms of imprisonment. Penalization in the "other"forms (table 6.2) is accounted for in 38(2,02%) of the totalobserved vehicle-related offences.Further,table 6.2 reveals that the majority of trafficoffenders who committed document offences paid an admission ofguilt fine and these constituted 456 (55,68%) cases. A totalof 191 (23,32%) traffic offenders paid spot fines, While 134(16,36%) cases account for penalization in the form of payingfines and deferred fines. Eighteen (2,20%) cases weresentenced to pay fines or to serve terms of imprisonment.Two (0,24%) traffic offenders had their sentences suspended.257

other forms of penalization are accounted for inthe total document offences. An overallpenalization is similar to table 6.1.18 (2,20%)pictureofof6.5.3.2 Racial distributionTable 6.3 reflects the distribution of penalization of trafficoffenders according to race. The same data is portrayed infigure 6.3.258

TABLE 6.3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATION ACCORDING TO RACE FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY TO 30 JUNE 1990RACE OF OFFENDERTOTALNATURE OF BLACK WHITE ASIAN COLOURED UNKNOWNPENALIZATION(N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%)ADMISSION OF 1709 74,24 1389 97,00 269 90,27 76 93,83 14 1,97 3457 71,65GUILTSPOT FINE . . . . . . · · 563 79,07 563 11,67FINE, 383 16,64 6 0,42 9 3,02 3 3,70 97 13,62 498 10,32DEFERRED FINEFINEOR 137 5,95 14 0,98 7 2,35 2 2,47 10 1,41 170 3,52IMPRISONMENTSUSPENDED 18 0,78 16 1,11 5 1,68 · · 3 0,42 42 0,87SENTENCEOTHER 55 2,39 7 0,49 8 2,68· · 25 3,51 95 1,97TOTAL 2302 100,00 1432 100,00 298 100,00 81 100,00 712 100,00 4825 100,00

FIGURE 6.3PENALIZATION ACCORDING TORACE OF OFFENDERSN 2000UMBER0F1500 -------_..-._-_._--TRAF 1000 -----FIC0F 500FEN0ER0sAG. SF. Fine Of. Fl. SS. Oth.NATURE OF PENALIZATIONRaceBlock -+- White -*- Asian---8- Coloured ~ UnknownAG::Admission of Guilt Df::Deferred FineF/:=Fine or Imprisonmenf SF==Spof FineSS::Suspended Sentence Oth.::Other260

Table 6.3 reveals that 2302 Black traffic offenders, 1432White, 298 Asian and 81 Coloured offenders were sUbjected tovarious forms of penalization during the period underinvestigation. Closer scrutiny of the data contained in thistable shows that the majority of Blacks paid an admission ofguilt fine and they are accounted for in 1709 (74,24%) cases,while 383 (16,64%) cases paid fines and deferred fines.Penalization in the payment of fines or serving of terms ofimprisonment was observed in 137 (5,95%) cases. Eighteen(0,78%) traffic offenders had their sentences suspended. The"other" category of penalization occurred in 55 (2,39%) cases.White traffic offenders paid an admission of guilt fine in1389 (97%) observed cases. six (0,42%) traffic offenderspaid fines and deferred fines, while 14 (0,98%) constitutedtraffic offenders who were sentenced to pay fines or to serveterms of imprisonment. Suspended sentences were observed in16 (1,11%) cases. Penalization in the "other" categoryoccurred in 7 (0,49%) cases. Payment of an admission ofguilt fine by Asians was observed in 269 (90,27%) cases, whilepayment of fines and deferred fines is accounted for in 9(3,02%) cases. Penalization in the form of fine orimprisonment was observed in seven (2,35%) of the total cases.Five (1,68%)traffic offenders had their sentences suspended.There were only 7(0,49%) cases in the "other" formspenalization category.ofColoured traffic offenders paid anadmission of guilt fine in 76 (93,83%) observed cases.Payment of fines and deferred fines occurred in 3 (3,70%)cases, while 2 (2,47%) traffic offenders Were sentenced to payfines or to serve terms of imprisonment. An overall pictureof penalization is the same as the one portrayed in table 6.1.261

6.5.3.3 Distribution according to sexTable 6.4 and Figure 6.4 present the distribution ofpenalization according to sex.262

TABLE 6.4 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATION ACCORDING TO SEX FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY TO 30 JUNE 1990SEX OF OFFENDERTOTALNATURE OF MALE FEMALE UNKNOWNPENALIZATION(N) (0/0) (N) (0/0) (N) (0/0) (N) (0/0)ADMISSION OF 3004 80,80 429 76,33 24 4,40 3457 71,65GUILTSPOT FINE 92 2,47 41 7,30 430 78,90 563 11,67FINE, 374 10,06 71 12,63 53 9,72 498 10,32DEFERRED FINEFINE OR 140 3,77 15 2,67 15 2,75 170 3,52IMPRISONMENTSUSPENDED 37 1,00 1 0,18 4 0,73 42 0,87SENTENCEOTHER 71 1,90 5 0,89 19 3,50 95 1,97TOTAL 3718 100,00 562 100,00 545 100,00 4825 100,00

FIGURE 6.4PENALIZATION ACCORDING TOSEX OF OFFENDERSN 3500UM3000BER1---------_·_--------_·_-II-r-....,..-----------·---------·------·-~ 2500TR 2000AFFI 1500coF 1000FENoERS500oAG. SF. Fine Df. FI. SS. Oth.NATURE OF PENALIZATIONSex_Male_ Female III UnknownAG:Admission of Guilf Df=Deferred FineFf=Fine or Imprisonment SF=Spof FineSS.:=-Suspended Sentence Ofh.=Ofher264

It can be seen that 3718 male traffic offenders were SUbjectedto various forms of penalization. A total of 562 femaletraffic offenders were variantly penalized. Payment of anadmission of guilt fine by male traffic offenders was observedin 3004 (80,80%) cases, while spot fines were paid by 92(2,47%) offenders. A total of 374 (10,06%) traffic offenderspaid fines and deferred fines.Penalization in the form offine or imprisonment occurred in 140 (3,77%) cases.Thirty-seven (1,00%) traffic offenders had their sentencessuspended, while 71 (1,90%) represented cases in the "other"forms of penalization category. Female traffic offenderswere responsible for payment of an admission of guilt fine in429 (76,33%) cases. Forty-One (7,30%) traffic offenders paidspot fines, while payment of fines and deferred fines wasobserved in 71 (12,63%) cases.Fine or imprisonment occurredin 15 (2,67%) cases. One (0,18%) female traffic offender hadher sentence suspended. The "other" forms of penalizationwere also meted out to female traffic offenders and these areaccounted for in 5 (0,89%) cases.overall picture of penalization isin table 6.1.It can be seen that ansimilar to that contained6.5.3.4 Distribution according to ageTable 6.5 reflects the distribution of penalization of trafficoffenders according to age and figure 6.5 portrays the samedata in graphical form.265

TABLE 6.5 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATION ACCORDING TO AGE FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY TO 30 JUNE 1990AGE OF OFFENDERNATURE OF 1B· 20 21· 30 31· 40 41· 50 51·60 61·70 71· BO UNKNOWNPENALIZATION YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS(N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%)ADMISSION OF 94 54,34 898 87,95 1288 90,39 729 96,06 271 93,77 66 84,62 14 100,00 97 9,10 3457 71,65GUILTSPOT FINE . . . . . . . . • . · · · ·563 52,81 563 11,67TOTALN ClClFINE, 50 28,90 91 8,91 102 7,16 8 1,05 12 4,15 11 14,10· · 224 21,01 498 10,32DEFERRED FINE·FINE OR 3 1,73 18 1,76 16 1,12 7 0,92 . . 1 1,28 · · 125 11,73 170 3,52IMPRISONMENTSUSPENDED 7 4,05 12 1,18 11 0,77 8 1,05 3 1,04 · · · · 1 0,10 42 0,87SENTENCEOTHER 19 10,98 2 0,20 8 0,56 7 0,92 3 1,04 · · · · 56 5,25 95 1,97TOTAL 173 100,00 1021 100,00 1425 100,00 759 100,00 289 100,00 78 100,00 14 100,00 1066 100,00 4825 100,00

FIGURE 6.5PENALIZATION ACCORDING TOAGE OF OFFENDERSNU 1400-----------------------,MBE 1200 -1--.1----------------------1R~ 1000 -I--i-----------------------lTR 800 -AFF600 -1-----------------------IC0 400 -FFEN 200 -DE.•;LuJIl.I...•. -R 0 I 'T ,SAG. SF. Fine Df. FI.,SS.,..nilOth.AGE OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS (YEARS)Age (Years)_ 18-20 _ 21-23 l'}'?i! 31-40 _ 41-50E::::::::I 51-60 0 61-70 _ 71-80 _ UnknownAC=Admission of GuiH Of=Deferrsd FineFI=Fine or Imprisonment SF=Spaf FineS5=Suspended Senlence Olh.=Olher267

,/" V/ /Table 6.5 reveals that traffic offenders in the age group18-20 years were subjected to different forms of penalizationand this is accounted for in 173 cases, while penalization ofoffenders in the age group 21-30 years was observed in 1021instances. The age category 31-40 years produced 1425various forms of penalization. A total of 759 differenttypes of penalization was observed in respect of the age group41 - 50 years. Variant penalization in respect of trafficoffenders aged between 51 and 60 years is accounted for in 289cases. Seventy-eight traffic offenders of the age group 61 ­70 years were sUbjected to various forms of penalization.Only one form of penalization (an admission of guilt fine) wasapplicable in respect of traffic offenders aged between and 71and 80 years.Traffic offenders aged between 18 and 20 years paid anadmission of guilt fine and this was observed in 94 (54,34%)cases. Payment of fines and deferred fines occurred in 50(28,90%) cases, while three (1,73%) young offenders weresentenced to pay fines or to serve terms of imprisonment.Suspended sentences are accounted for in seven (4,05%) cases.The "other" penalization forms were observed in 19 (10,98%)cases. Payment of an admission of guilt fine by trafficoffenders of the age group 21 - 30 years occurred in 898(87,95%) cases, while 91 (8,91%) traffic offenders paid finesand deferred fines. Eighteen (1,76%) traffic offenders wererequired to pay fines or to serve prison sentences.Suspended sentences were observed in 12 (1,18%) traffic cases.The "other" types of penalization were applied to two (0,20%)traffic offenders. Traffic offenders with ages rangingbetween 31 and 40 years were in the majority with regard tothe payment of an admission of guilt fine and this wasobserved in 1288 (90,39%) cases. Payment of fines and268

deferred fines occurred in 102 (7,16%) cases. sixteen(1,12%) traffic offenders were sentenced to pay fines or toserve prison sentences; while suspended sentences wereobserved in 11 (0,77%) cases. The "other" forms ofpenalization were observed in 8(0,56%) cases.The age group 41-50 years paid an admission of guilt fine in729 (96,06%) cases. Payment of fines and deferred finesoccurred in 8 (1,05%) cases, while 8 (1,05%) traffic offendershad their sentences suspended. Seven (0,92%) trafficoffenders were sentenced to pay fines or to serve terms ofimprisonment. Penalization in the "other" category (table6.5) produced 7 (0,92%) cases. A total of 271 (93,77%) caseswere observed in respect of payment of an admission of guiltfine by traffic offenders aged between 51 and 60 years.Payment of fines and deferred fines occurred in 12 (4,15%)cases. Three (1,04%) traffic offenders had their sentencessuspended, while the "other" forms of penalization areaccounted for in 3 (1,04%) cases. The age group 61 - 70years produced 66 (84,62%) cases in respect of payment of anadmission of guilt fine, while 11 (14,10%) represented thecases where traffic offenders paid fines and deferred fines.Only one (1,28%) traffic offender was sentenced to pay fine orto serve a prison sentence. A total of fourteen (100%) caseswas observed in respect of payment of an admission of guiltfine by traffic offenders aged between 71 and 80 years.6.5.3.5 Occupational distributionTable 6.6 presents the distribution of penalization of trafficoffenders according to occupation.Similarly, figure 6.6 conveniently portrays the same data.269

TABLE 6.6 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATION ACCORDING TO OCCUPATION FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY TO 30 JUNE 1990NATURE OFPENALIZATIONOCCUPATION OF OFFENDERTOTALPROFESSIONAL, SKILLED PROFESSIONAL UNSKILLED OTHER UNEMPLOYED UNKNOWNEXECUTIVE &DRIVERSMANAGERIAL(N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%) (N) (%)ADMISSION OF 858 100,00 500 99,60 1311 99,47 82 100,00 274 98,92 208 99,52 224 14,19 3457 71,65GUII.TSPOT FINE · · · · · · · · · · · · 563 35,66 563 11,67~FINE, · · 1 0,20 7 0,53 · · · · · · 490 31,03 498 10,32DEFERRED FINEFINE OR · ·1 0,20 · · · · · · · · 169 10,70 170 3,52IMPRISONMENTSUSPENDED · · · · · · · · · · · · 42 2,66 42 0,87SENTENCEOTHER· · · · · · · · 3 1,02 1 0,48 91 5,76 95 1,97TOTAl. 858 100,00 502 100,00 1318 100,00 82 100,00 277 100,00 209 100,00 1579 100,00 4825 100,00

FIGURE 6.6PENALIZATION ACCORDING TOOCCUPATION OF OFFENDERS1600-..------------,N 1400UMBE 1200ROccupation Type0F Executive1000-TSkilledRAEillill Drivers"-F 800FIc !ffiiliillI ......... Other600Unskilled-0 CJ UnknownFFUnemployedE400NDER200 soAG. SF. Fine Of FI. SS. Oth.OCCUPATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSAG=Admission of Guilt Df=Oeferred FineF/=F7ne or Imprisonment SF=Spof FineSS=Suspended Senfence Ofh.=Ofher271* Drivers ~ Professional Drivers

Table 6.6 reveals that a total of 858 traffic offenders in theprofessional, executive and managerial occupation categorypaid an admission of guilt fine, while 502 skilled trafficoffenders occupation category were subjected to various formsof penalization. Professional drivers were variantlypenalized and this is accounted for in ~3~8 cases.Eighty-two traffic offenders in the unskilled category paid anadmission of guilt fine. A total of 277 traffic offenders inthe "other" occupation category were sUbjected to diverseforms of penalization. A total of 209 instances of variantpenalization was observed in respect of traffic offenders whowere unemployed.Traffic offenders in the professional. executive andmanagerial occupation category paid an admission of guilt finein 858 (~OO%) cases, while those with skilled occupations paidan admission of guilt fine in 500 (99,60%) observed cases.only one (0,20%) traffic offender was sentenced to fine orimprisonment. payment of fine and deferred fine was observedin respect of one (0,20%) traffic offender. A total of 13~1(99,47%) professional drivers paid an admission of guilt fine,while payment of fines and deferred fines is accounted for inseven (0,53%) cases. Traffic offenders with unskilledoccupations were responsible for the payment of an admissionof guilt fine in 82 (100%) observed cases. Traffic offendersin the "other" occupation category paid an admission of guiltfine in 274 (98,92%) cases. For the various types of "other"occupations see chapter 4, paragraph 4.9.The "other" formsof penalization in respect of traffic offenders with unskilledoccupations were meted out in three (~,08%) cases. Theunemployed traffic offenders paid an admission of guilt finein 208 (99,52%) cases, while the "other" formes) ofpenalization was (were) observed in respect of one (0,48%)272

traffic offender.reflected in tabletable 6.1.An overall picture of6.6 is similar to the onepenalizationcontained in6.5.3.6 Distribution according to amount paidTable 6.7 renders the distribution of penalization accordingto amounts paid in respect of fines, admission of guilt fines,deferred fines and spot fines.Figures 6.7 andgraphical manner.6.8 depict data contained in this table in273

TABLE 6.7 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATIONACCORDING TO AMOUNT PAID FOR THE PERIOD 01JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990AMOUNTPAIDFREQUENCY(N) (%)RIO - R99 2235 46,85RI00 - R199 1665 34,90R200 - R299 519 10,88R300 - R399 179 3,75R400 - R499 56 1,17R500 - R599 28 0,59R600 - R699 14 0,29R700 - R799 7 0,15R800 - R899 6 0,13R900 - R999 1 0,02MORE THAN R1000 26 0,54NOT APPLICABLE 35 0,73TOTAL 4771 100,00274

FIGURE 6.7PENALIZATION ACCORDING TOAMOUNT PAIDAMOUNT IN RANDS10-99100-199200-299300-399400-499500-599600-699700-799800-899900-999R 1000+N/Ao 500 1000 1500 2000 2500N/A:Not ApplicableNUMBER OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS275

FIGURE 6.8PENALIZATION ACCCORDING TOAMOUNT PAIDAMOUNT IN RANDS10-99100-199200-299300-399400-499500-599600-699700-799800-899900-999R 1000+N/A0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500NUMBER OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSN/A=Nof Applicable276

Table 6.7 reveals that the majority of traffic offenders paidamounts ranging between RIO and R99'and this was observed in2235 (46,85%) cases. A total of 1665 (34,90%) trafficoffenders paid amounts between Rl00 and R199, while thecategory R200 - R299 produced 519 (10,88%) cases. It can beseen from table 6.7 that 179 (3,79%) traffic offenders paidamounts between R300 and R399-00. The category R400 - R499produced 56 (1,17%) traffic offenders, while payment ofamounts ranging from R500 to R599 is accounted for in 28(0,59%) cases. Fourteen (0,29%) traffic offenders paidamounts between R600 and R699-00.the category R700 -Amounts paid in respect ofR799 were observed in seven (0,15%) cases,While six (0,13%) traffic offenders paid amounts ranging fromR800 to R899-00. Only one (0,02%) traffic offender wasobserved in the category between R900 and R999-00.Twenty-six (0,54%) traffic offenders paid more than Rl000,while in 35 (0,73%) payment of any monies was not applicable.277

6.5.3.7 Distribution according to terms of imprisonmentTable 6.8 presents the distribution of the terms ofimprisonment. Likewise, figure 6.9 portrays data containedin this table.TABLE 6.8 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PENALIZATION ACCORDING TOTERMS OF IMPRISONMENT FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY- 30 JUNE 1990TERM OF IMPRISONMENTFREQUENCY(N) (%)10 - 99 DAYS 157 3,30100 - 199 DAYS 35 0,73200 - 299 DAYS 10 0,21300 - 399 DAYS 10 0,21400 - 499 DAYS - -500 - 599 DAYS 2 0,04NOT APPLICABLE 4557 95,51TOTAL 4771 100,00278

FIGURE 6.9PENALIZATION ACCCORDING TOTERM OF IMPRISONMENT5NUMBER OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS (THOUSANDS)432 ./1o10-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-499 500-599 N/ATERM OF IMPRISONMENT IN DAYSN/A=Not Applicoble279

Term of imprisonment ranging from 10 to 99 days produced 157(3,30%) traffic offenders. Thirty-five (0,73%) trafficoffenders were sentenced to terms of imprisonment between 100and 199 days. Table 6.8 also reveals that ten (0,21%)traffic offenders were sentenced to terms of imprisonmentranging from 200 to 299 days and 10 (0,21%) offenders weresentenced to terms of imprisonment between 300 and 399 days.Only two (0,04%) traffic offenders had terms of imprisonmentranging from 500 to 599 days. In 4557 (95,51%) traffic casesterms of imprisonment were not applicable.6.5.3.8 court appearancesFailure to payappearance.an admission of guilt fine implies courtTable 6.9 presents the distribution of 4771according to appearances before the court.depicted in figures 6.10. and 6.11.traffic offendersThe same data is280

TABLE 6.9 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERSACCORDING TO COURT APPEARANCES FOR THE PERIOD01 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 1990COURT OF APPEARANCEFREQUENCY(N) (%)EMPANGENI MAGISTRATE'S COURT 730 15,30KWAMBONAMBI PERIODIC COURT 12 0,25NON-APPEARANCES 4029 84,45TOTAL 4771 100,00281

FIGURE 6.10TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDING TOCOURT APPEARANCESNon-AppearanceKwoMbonombiEmpangeni282

FIGURE 6.11TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACCORDINGTO COURT APPEARANCES5NUMBE 4R0FTR 3AFFIC0 2FFENDE,"R 1 /SoEmpangeniKwaMbonambiNon-appearanceCOURT APPEARANCEr axis in thousands of traffic offenders283

It is evident from table 6.9 that the majority of trafficoffendeJ;s did not appear in court and these non-appearancesare accounted for in 4029 (84,45%) of the total observedcases. A total of 730 (15,30%) traffic offenders appearedfor trial in Empangeni magistrate's court, while 12 (0,25%)traffic offenders appeared in KwaMbonambi periodic court.6.5.4 Disparity in penalizing traffic offendersDisparity in penalization is difficult to define and more'difficult to measure. Sentencing disparity simply meansinequality or discrepancy or differential or variations inpenalization (Reid, 1976:418; Waldron, 1980:262; Hood,1972:125). Burchell et al. (1983:81) state: "But there is atleast one respect in which inequality of sentences isconsidered justifiable: the Appellate Division has held that. '.in assessing what punishment is needed to deter others fromcommitting an offence it is proper for a court to have regardto the prevalence of that offence in that district. Itfollows that even if X and Z, two robbers, have equal moralguilt, it may be justifiable to give X a more severe sentencethan Z if robbery is rife in the district in which X commitshis crime••• "certain aspects and issues may explain why traffic offendersare not uniformly penalized and are also dealt with ratherdifferently from other types of offenders. The maindifficulty in presenting the sentencing disparity is to decidewhat constitutes substantial variation (Karmen, 1990:198).The problem partly involves value jUdgements. For instance,people may quite justifiably disagree on whether thedifference between a Rioo and a R300 fine is substantial. Itis also a problem inherent in the methods which have beenused. It is appropriate to consider whether jUdicial284

...officers are consistently relatively severe in theirsentencing (Hood, 1972:136-137). The following may be asked:Do jUdicial officers who impose higher than average fines fordrunken driving also consider higher than average fines forother traffic offences? It is for this reason that one mayhypothesize that judicial officers are generally relativelysevere or relatively lenient in the sentences they impose.Hood (1972:140-141) opines: "Obviously a magistrate'sbackground has an influence on the sentence he passes, butfrom this analysis it is impossible to ascribe any particUlarweight to the importance of any single attribute or groups ofrelated attributes over all kinds of case." The relationshipbetween the perception of the seriousness of traffic offencesand severity of the penalization imposed is a very complex oneto understand. What makes it difficult is that a sentence,for example a fine, may be very heavy which illustrates aserious traffic offence whilst it is not actually so.Another factor that could play a vital role - leading tosentence disparities - is the question of previous convictions(SAP69's) in cases of serious traffic offences. But thisconsideration does not hold for minor traffic offences.is for this reason that prompted Hood (1972:141) to state:"There is, then, general support for an explanation ofsentencing which sees differences in the way magistratesperceive and categorize offences as an important factor inproducing disparate penalties. " The variation in theperception of the seriousness of traffic offences is ofimportance, but it is inappropriate to generalize about itsinfluence as it is the most important variable affecting thedecision on which punishment to impose.ItDiscrepancies in penalizing traffic offendersoccur becausesentencing is highly subjective and judicial officers arehuman, and therefure prone to err according to their biases285

(Waldron, 1980:262). There is a tendency to conclude thatdisparity in penalization is due to the more observabledemographic variables such as race, sex, age, etc. It shouldbe noted that this is not to deny that such disparity existsbut simply to note the difficulty of getting empiricalevidence of the reasons. Reid (1976: 418) opines: "It is,however, extremely important to realize that some degree ofdisparity must exist if there is to be a system ofindividualized treatment. 11The following factors should beconsidered in an analysis of differential penalization:(a)quality of traffic law enforcement: it varies because ofresources, salaries, morale of the local authority'straffic department;(b)popUlation density;(c)ratio of traffic officers to the popUlation; and(d)type of training received by traffic officers.This is not to suggest that differential penalization in thetraffic justice system does not reflect bias and prejudicesbecause of age, sex,race or socio-economic status.A number of personal characteristics of jUdicial officers mayalso feature in variant penalization. The. age of both thejudicial officer and the traffic offender may have some effect(Toch, 1961:127). Youthful traffic offenders are more likelyto be treated with more leniency than the older trafficoffenders. A career on the bench has its specific bearing onsentencing disparity (Hood, 1972:138). A newly appointedmagistrate may be inclined to view his rights and dutiesdifferently from a more experienced magistrate. In contrast286

to a more experienced magistrate, the younger magistrate maybe very eager to make his "mark" (Toch, 1961:127). AjUdicial officer's socio-economic background may also be ofimportance. It is possible that a jUdicial officer whosefather was a successful attorney or member with a high statusvalue may retain the conservative attitude of his father'sprofession. The contrary may, however, also be the case.Toch (1961:129) opines: "One jUdge who is the son of aconservative father may be relatively radical, whereas a judgewho is the son of radical may be relatively conservative onthe bench, although both men are reacting to their fathers'backgrounds. This kind of inconsistency between social classbackground and jUdicial attainment may have resulted in someunusual decisions and opinions." The kind of legal practicein which the magistrate engaged before his appointmentundoubtedly has some relationship to the penalization oftraffic offenders. As a result, some jUdicial officers maybecome extremely harsh whereas others may be relativelylenient (Toch, 1961:129-130).The researcher is of the opinion that disparities in~~penalizing traffic offenders in the magisterial district ofLower Umfolozi are due to lack of discussion about theprinciples which should be used in deciding what weight shouldbe given to various aggravating circumstancesthe ordinary traffic offences.in respect ofThe danger is that attemptsto achieve uniformity in penalization through legislation,scales or more informal methods (such as the steady influenceof the clerk of the court, public prosecutors and courtinterpreters) may well inhibit change. One of the prices ofuniformity is stagnation, and it is certainly not clear thatthe courts are so correct in their solution to penalizationthat they can afford a standard approach rather than pursuinga more dynamic sentencing policy. This implies that it would287

e less uniform but perhaps more in line with a more modernphilosophy based on individualized penalization of trafficoffenders.The penalization procedure as it is presently being applied,allows the jUdicial officer, within the boundaries of certainminimum - maximum sentences to decide on punishment which heregards appropriate; although there is a fair degree ofcongruency- in sentencing in South Africa, it is also true thatshould the traffic offender by any chance have been tried byanother court, penalization could have differed from theactual sentence. Sentencing, therefore, remains a randomprocedure due to absence of guiding scientific pre-sentenceinvestigations. The factual situation is that scrupulousattention, based on complicated rules of evidence, is focusedon the question whether the traffic offender is guilty orinnocent. Once he has been found guilty, the sentencefollows shortly. It is therefore apparent that two trafficoffenders who have committed the same traffic offence will bepenalized differently. This will be evident from theillustrative tables 6.10 6.15 (driving offences)« tables6.16 - 6.21 (vehicle-related offences) and tables 6.22 - 6.27(document offences). The researcher has arbitrarily selectedspeqific offences in each category of traffic offence. It isnot the intention of the researcher to give detailed tables,but only to highlight illustrative tables to show disparitiesin penalizing traffic offenders.These tables have beencompiled for academic purposes and with the view to orientatethe reader and to eliminate any possible distortions thatmight exist with regard to the question of disparities inpenalizing traffic offenders. The researcher does not implythat traffic offenders who have committed the same traffic288

offence should be penalized in exactly the same way. Itshould be noted that penalization is contingent on thephilosophy of individualization.TABLE 6.10 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING SPEEDING TRAFFICOFFENDERSRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION SPEED SPEED PElIALIZATIONLIMITTRAVElLEDBLACK MALE 51 YRS PROFESSIONAL 60 lOO! 73 lOO! UODRIVERBLACK MALE 35 YRS PROFESSIONAL 80 lOO! 91,8 lOO! R30DRIVER\ilIlITE MALE 48 YRS IlANAGERIAL 80 lOO! 91,8 lOO! R50\ilIlITE MALE 21 YRS IlANAGERIAL 60 lOO! 71,4 lOO! R75mTE FEMALE - llBEMPLOYED 60 lOO! 71,4 lOO! R50\ilIlITE FEMALE - SELF-EMPLOYED 60 lOO! 84 00 RlOO\ilIlITE FEMALE - IlANAGERIAL 60 lOO! 84 00 R50•CDUJURElJ MALE 32 YRS SKILLED 6000 84 00 Rl20289

TABLE 6.11DISPARITY IN PENALIZING DRUNK TRAFFIC OFFENDERSRACE SEX AGE BAC* LEVEl.S III GRAMS PER 100 IlL PENALIZATIOIlBLACK JlALE 49 YRS 0,20 R400 OR 80 DAYSIlIPRISOIlllENTBLACK JlALE 61 YRS 0,22 R500 OR 3 IKJIITHSIMPRISOllIIElITBLACK JlALE - 0,08 R400 OR 80 DAYSIMPRISOllIIElITBLA(X l'ElIALE 42 YRS - R700 OR 6 I«llITllSI!IPRISONllEllT!Sill JlALE 35 YRS 0,13 R500 OR 80 DAYSIMPRISONllElITASIA1l JlALE 19 YRS 0,22 R400 OR 4 IKJIITHSIlIPRISOIlllENTo:JLOORED JlALE 30YRS 0,29 R600 OR 100 DAYSIlIPRISOIlllENTiiJIITE JlALE WYRS 0,13 RIOOO OR 8 I«llITllSIMPRISOllIIElITiiJIITE JlALE HYRS 0,23 R7000R31KJ11THSIlIPRISOllIIElI* BAC = Blood Alcohol Concentration290

TABLE 6.12 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODISREGARDED A BARRIER LINERACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONWHITE FEMALE 27 YRS MANAGERIAL RIOOWHITE FEMALE 39 YRS UNEMPLOYED R200WHITE MALE 37 YRS SKILLED RIOOWHITE MALE 34 YRS SKILLED R200BLACK MALE 50 YRS PROFESSIONAL RIOODRIVERBLACK MALE 31 YRS PROFESSIONAL R200DRIVERASIAN MALE 34 YRS MANAGERIAL R200ASIAN MALE 29 YRS MANAGERIAL RIOO291

TABLE 6.13 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODISREGARDED A STOP SIGNRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONASIAN MALE· 32 YRS - R200ASIAN MALE - PROFESSIONAL DRIVER R50ASIAN MALE 25 YRS PROFESSIONAL DRIVER RIOOWHITE MALE 42 YRS SKILLED RIOOWHITE MALE 30 YRS MANAGERIAL R50WHITE MALE 38 YRS MANAGERIAL R200BLACK MALE 38 YRS UNSKILLED R50BLACK MALE - - R200292

TABLE 6.14 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES RECKLESSLY AND/OR NEGLIGENTLYRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONBLACK MALE 44 YRS - R100.WHITE MALE 53 YES MANAGERIAL R200TABLE 6.15 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES WITHOUT OWNERS ICONSENTRACE SEX AGE PENALIZATIONBLACK MALE 27 YRS R200 OR 6 MONTHSIMPRISONMENTBLACK MALE 18 YES R500BLACK MALE 19 YES 7 STROKESBLACK MALE 15 YES 4 STROKESBlACK MALE 15 YES 5 STROKESASIAN MALE 18 YRS R100 OR 50 DAYSIMPRISONMENT293

TABLE 6.16 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLE WITH DEFECTIVE BRAKESRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONASIAN MALE 40 YRS MANAGERIAL R50ASIAN MALE 58 YRS MANAGERIAL R30COLOURED MALE 31 YRS SKILLED R50COLOURED MALE 41 YRS SKILLED RIOOBLACK MALE 18 YRS UNSKILLED RIOOBLACK MALE 68 YRS UNEMPLOYED R30BLACK MALE 30 YRS PROFESSIONAL R200DRIVERBLACK MALE 32 YRS PROFESSIONAL RI50DRIVER294

TABLE 6.17 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES WITH DEFECTIVE TYRESRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONBLACK MALE 64 YRS MANAGERIAL RSOBLACK MALE 56 YRS - R40BLACK MALE 34 YRS MANAGERIAL R20BLACK MALE 44 YRS PROFESSIONAL RIOODRIVERTABLE 6.18 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES WITH DEFECTIVE STEERINGRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONBLACK MALE 56 YRS - R30BLACK MALE - PROFESSIONAL RSODRIVERBLACK MALE 60 YRS - R200BLACK MALE 33 YRS SKILLED RIOO295

TABLE 6.19 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES WITH DEFECTIVE STOP LIGHTSRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONBLACK MALE 35 YRS MANAGERIAL R30BLACK MALE 30 YRS PROFESSIONAL R50DRIVERTABLE 6.20 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE VEHICLES WITH PEFECTIVE DIRECTIONINDICATORSRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONBLACK MALE 32 YRS PROFESSIONAL RIOODRIVERBLACK MALE 48 YRS PROFESSIONAL R20DRIVERBLACK MALE 76 YRS UNEMPLOYED R30296

TABLE 6.21 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS FORFUEL LEAKAGEFROM VEHICLESRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONBLACK MALE 31 YRS PROFESSIONAL RI50DRIVERBLACK MALE 38 YRS PROFESSIONAL RIOODRIVERBLACK MALE 32 YRS PROFESSIONAL R200DRIVERBLACK MALE 51 YRS - R30297

TABLE 6.22 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING UNLICENSED MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERS.RACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION LICENCE CODE PENALIZATION},SIAN HALE 28 YRS Itll/AGERIAL 01 R70fo'lUTE HALE 19 YRS SKILLED 01 Rl50ASIAN HALE 16 YRS UNSKILLED 01 R75wn:rrE HALE 32 YRS SKILLED Ol RlOOWlIITE HALE 18 YRS SKILLED 02 RlOOWlIITE HALE 19 YRS SKILLED 02 Rl50WlIITE HALE 43 YRS lI!IIAGERIAL 02 R200BLACK lIALE 28 YRS PROFESSIONAL DRIVER 02 R50BLACK lIALE 32 YRS PROFESSIONAL DRIVER 07 R250BLACK lIALE 32 YRS PROFESSIONAL DRIVER 07 R200BLACK lIALE 26 YRS PROFESSIONAL DRIVER 08 R250BLACK lIALE 57 YRS PROFESSIONAL DRIVER 08 R200BLACK IlALE 29YRS SKILLED 08 Rl50BUCK lIALE 30 YRS UNSKILLED 08 R200iiIlITE lIALE 2IYRS - 08 R200iiIlITE FOOLE 35 YRS lI!IIAGERIAL 08 RlOOASIAN IlALE 19 YRS PROFESSlCiAL DRIVER 10 R200iiIlITE IlALE 26 YRS PROFESSlCiAL DRIVER 10 R250298

TABLE 6.23 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERSWITH FRAUD DRIVERS'LICENCESRACE SEX AGE PENALIZATIONBLACK MALE - R300 OR 60 DAYS_IMPRISONMENTBLACK MALE 31 YRS R500 OR 90 DAYSIMPRISONMENTBLACK MALE 24 YRS R400 OR 80 DAYSIMPRISONMENTTABLE 6.24 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WITHNO PROFESSIONAL DRIVING PERMITRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONBLACK MALE 57 YRS PROFESSIONAL R200DRIVERBLACK MALE 28 YRS PROFESS IONAL RIOODRIVER299

TABLE 6.25 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHODROVE UNLICENSED MOTOR VEHICLESRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONWHITE FEMALE 37 YRS UNEMPLOYED RIOOCOLOURED MALE 37 YRS UNEMPLOYED RSOASIAN MALE 31 YRS UNEMPLOYED CAUTIONEDANDDISCHARGEDTABLE 6.26 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERS WHOOPERATED TAXIS WITH ONE PASSENGER OVERLOADRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONBLACK MALE 38 YRS PROFESSIONAL RSODRIVERBLACK MALE 41 YRS . PROFESSIONAL R30DRIVER300

TABLE 6.27 DISPARITY IN PENALIZING TRAFFIC OFFENDERSWHO OPERATED TAXIS WITH NO CERTIFICATES OFFITNESSRACE SEX AGE OCCUPATION PENALIZATIONBLACK MALE 39 YRS PROFESSIONAL RIOODRIVERBLACK MALE 35 YRS PROFESSIONAL R50DRIVERBLACK MALE 26 YRS PROFESSIONAL R200DRIVERIt is not the intention of the researcher to outline adetailed comparison of tables 6.10 to 6.27. Obviously, sometypes of traffic offences are regarded as more serious thanothers. For instance, driving while intoxicated is thedriving offence for which imprisonment with the option of afine is commonly imposed. This trend can be seen from table6.11. It should also be noted that traffic offenders may bemotivated by unknown circumstantial factors. For instance,disregarding of stop signs (table 6.13) may be due to diversefactors such as "very busy crossings", fatigue, etc. Theunknown circumstantial factors may be the cause of recklessand/or negligent driving (table 6.14). See chapter 3,paragraph 3.4 for a discussion of the factors that contribute301

towards traffic offences. It should also be noted thattables 6.10 to 6.27 do not reflect the cases where fines werereduced by public prosecutors.6.6 SUMMARYPenalization of traffic offenders follows the violation oftraffic laws. Penalization refers to the infliction ofpenalties upon traffic offenders. Ther.e are trafficoffenders who admit their guilt by paying admission of guiltfines, thus avoiding court appearances. Penalization exhibitdiscrete characteristics and penalization of traffic offendersis contingent upon the realization with regard to thefollowing objectives:* retribution~* incapacitation~* deterrence~ and* correction.The more difficult and challenging task of traffic officers istestifying in court.The ability to testify effectively andefficiently in court in an honest, clear and professionalmanner is extremely important. Eight important principlesadd credibility and articulateness to effective courtroomtestimony.It is crucial for traffic officers to eithertestify as lay or ordinary witnesses and as expert witnesses.Testifying in court is a skill that must be developed and

The judicial officers are faced with a problem in deciding howto penalize traffic offenders. Discretion in sentencing is---understood in terms of the "surrounding belt of'- restriction."The Road Traffic Act (see chapter 2, paragraph 2.4.3)prescribes penalization of traffic offenders. The CriminalProcedure Act prescribes the range of sentences which may beimposed on offenders in general. Traffic offenders arepenalized in various ways. The following are the mostimportant forms of penalization:* an admission of guilt fine;* fine, deferred fine and spot fine;* imprisonment;* whipping;* periodical imprisonment; etc.The concept "disparity" simply means the inequalities orvariations in penalizing traffic offenders.penalization can be ascribed to afactors which are diverse and complex in nature.This variantvariety of reasons or303

CHAPTER 7FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS7.1 INTRODUCTIONResearch on penalization of traffic offenders in themagisterial district of Lower Umfolozi brings to light manyissues. Traffic offences and traffic offenders areclassified as such in terms of specific juridicalrequirements. Any traffic offence, no matter how trivial,which is adjudicated in a criminal court, is classified as acrime. A study of penalization of traffic offenders has beenmade by concentrating on the important aspects that have beenidentified.The handling and control of road use and trafficsafety are contingent upon road traffic legislation and itsenforcement.Road traffic legislation is crucial but itshould take heed of community norms and should enjoy a highdegree of support among the community members. Traffic lawregulates the motor vehicle driver's social behaviour. TheRoad Traffic Act and Regulations contain broad legalprescriptions which are focused on actual road use. Themotor vehicle driver (traffic offender) receives specialattention. This particUlar attention relates to penalizationwhich follows a violation of traffic law. The manner inwhich traffic law is enforced and the manner in which thetraffic offender is penalized are of cardinal importance.Negative perceptions in this regard are often primary causesof resentment and insufficient co-operation by drivers ofmotor vehicles. Penalization is therefore focused ondevelopingfault.the traffic offender's ability to realize his/herTraffic law enforcement and penalization are304

important crime-preventive measures which directly underlietraffic safety, education and training. The most importantfindings as well as recommendations are accordingly discussedin this chapter.7.2KEY FINDINGS7.2.1Traffic offencesThere are three discrete categories of traffic offences:* driving offences:* vehicle-related offences: and* document offences (see chapter 3, paragraph 3.2).7.2.1.1 Driving offencesThese were the dominant offences observed through this study.A total of 2641 (41,42%) driving offences were committedduring the period 01 January - 30 June 1990 (see table 3.1).Document offences were the least committed.Speeding was themost prevalent driving offence and is accounted for in 1424(53,92%) cases (see table 3.2). Road traffic signs weredisregarded in 362 (13,71%) observed cases. Safety beltswere not worn in 266 (10,07%) traffic cases, while failure toobey traffic signals was observed in 152 (5,75%) cases (seetable 3.2).Rules applicable to the use of the roads weredisregarded in 105 (3,98%) traffic cases.A breathalyzer wasinsufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a motorvehicle driver's blood alcohol concentration exceeded 0,08grams.There are practical difficulties in forcing anunwilling driver to provide a specimen. Seventy (2,65%)305

traffic offenders were penalized for driving under theinfluence of alcohol. Drunken driving was an overwhelminglymale traffic offender activity (see table 3.3}. Blacksfeatured predominantly in driving while intoxicated (see table3.4). The majority of traffic offenders penalized fordrunken driving had their blood alcohol concentration levelsranging from 0,16 to 0,20 grams per 100 millilitres of blood(see table 3.5).7.2.1.2 Vehicle-related offencesThe majority of traffic offenders were penalized for operatingmotor vehicles with defective brakes and this was observed in532 (22,17%) cases (see table 3.6). Penalization fordefective stop/head lights and defective tyres was meted outin respect of 415 (17,29%) and 355 (14,79%) casesrespectively. Fuel leakage was observed in 281 (11,71%)traffic cases.7.2.1.3 Document offencesMost traffic offenders were penalized for operating unlicensed(expired clearance certificates) motor vehicles and this isaccounted for in 544 (40,66%) traffic cases (see table 3.7).Unlicensed motor vehiCle drivers were penalized in 261(19,50%) cases. It emanates from this research that thereare problematics regarding the issuing of drivers' licences.A total of 426 (16,02%) learner drivers were issued withdrivers' licences, while 2234(83,98%) applicants for drivers'licences failed the drivers' .tests. This might be acontributory factor towards operating motor vehicles withoutvalid drivers' licences. It has been established thatlearners' licences were not "easily" issued. A total of 1656(32,73%) applicants were issued with learners' licences, while306

3404 (67,27%) applicants failed the learners' licence tests(see table 3.9). It should be noted that the position wasrather better with regard to issuing learners' licences thanissuing drivers' licences. The applicants who wished to havetheir public motor vehicles tested for fitness did notencounter any difficulties. certificates of fitness wereissued to 832 (95,19%) applicants (see table 3.10). A totalof 1352 (96,64%) applicants were issued with certificates of- roadworthiness in respect of their motor vehicles (see table3.11). It is therefore apparent that it was not so difficultfor the applicants to be issued with fitness and roadworthycertificates.Traffic offences can be committed consciously or unconciously.Unconscious traffic offences are committed because the motorvehicle driver apparently does not know the traffic law or isunaware that he is violating traffic law.will beIn many cases itdifficult or impossible for the traffic officer toidentify this difference. This poses a problem in and ofitself: penalizing a motor vehicle driver for a trafficoffence that he did not know he was committing may dolittleto help realize the objectives of traffic policing andprevention in particular. It may tarnish the image oftraffic officers since prosecution is never popular.7.2.2Traffic offenders and traffic offences7.2.2.1IncidenceRichards Bay police station .(via Richards Bay trafficdepartment) apprehended more traffic offenders than Empangenipolice station. A total of 2367 (49,61%) traffic offenderswere apprehended by Richards Bay traffic officers (see table4.1 and figure 4.2). Richards Bay traffic officers307

apprehended more traffic offenders for committing drivingoffences (1615 (61,15%) cases) and document offences (604(45,14%) cases), while Empangeni traffic officers apprehendedmore motor vehicle drivers for committing vehile-relatedoffences and these are accounted for in 957 (39,88%) observedcases (see table 4.2 and figure 4.3). It can therefore beseen that the greatest number of traffic offences were dealtwith by Richards Bay police station (via the Richards Baytraffic department). .KwaMbonambi police station (via theNatal Provincial Administration traffic department, based atEmpangeni) dealt with the least number of cases.7.2.2.2 Types of vehicles involvedDrivers of private motor vehicles were the main trafficoffenders and are accounted for in 2597 (54,43%) of the totalobserved traffic cases (see table 4.3 and figure 4.4). Atotal of 590 (12,37%) public motor vehicles were involved intraffic offence commission.7.2.2.3 Dynamics of traffic offencesJanuary was the most active month during which the majority oftraffic offenders were apprehended. A total of 875 (18,34%)traffic offenders were penalized during this month (see table4.4 and figure 4.5). It was expected that April couldproduce moretraffic offenders due to three public holidays(two long weekends), but instead, this month produced 708(14,84%) cases (see table 4.4 and figure 4.5). It hastherefore been established that there was a noticeablefluctuation in traffic offence commission according to themonth of the period under investigation. There were moretraffic offences committed during January andthese areaccounted for in 585 (22,15%) driving offences, 524 (21,83%)308

vehicle-related offences and 219 (16,36%) document offences(see table 4.5 and figure 4.6). April accounted for moredocument offences, while a total of 451 (17,09%) drivingoffences, 472 (19,66%) vehicle-related offences and 230(17,19%) document offences were committed during this month.Tuesdays produced more traffic offences and these areaccounted for in 454 (20,64%) driving offences, 427 (17,79%)vehicle-related offences and 257 (19,21%) document offences(see table 4.7 and figure 4.8). It seems therefore thatthere are favourite times for certain traffic offences.majority of traffic offenders wereThepenalized for committingtraffic offences during daytime. A total of 1333 (27,94%)traffic offenders were penalized during daytime (see table 4.8and figure 4.9). Only one traffic offender was apprehendedduring late night. It can therefore be noticed that trafficlaw enforcement was slack during certain times such as: latenight, early morning, early evening and late afternoon.peak time for all traffic offences in which the times ofcommission were recorded was during daytime (08HOO-15H59).total of 728 (27,57%) driving offences, 525 (21,87%)vehicle-related offences and 384 (28,71%) document offenceswere committed during daytime (see table 4.9 and figure 4.10).TheA7.2.2.4 Demographic variables of traffic offendersMost traffic offenders were in the age group 31-40 years andare accounted for in 1412 (29,60%) observed cases (see table4.10 and figure 4.11). An increase can be noticed betweenthe age groups 18-20 years, which produced 168 (3,52%) casesand 21-30 years, which produced 1010 (21,17%) trafficoffenders.Traffic crime commission declines with age.This notion is substantiated by the various age groups.age group 41-50 years produced 754 (15,80%) cases; the ageThe309

group 51-60 years produced 284 (5,95%) cases; the age group61-70 years produced 73 (1,53%) cases; and the age group 71-80years is accounted for only 9 (0,19%) observed -cases (seetable 4.10 and figure 4.11). Traffic offenders aged between31 and 40 years committed more traffic offences than the otherage groups of traffic offenders and these are accounted for808 (30,60%) driving offences, 658 (27,42%) vehicle-relatedoffences and 375 (28,03%) document offences (see table 4.12,figures 4.12 and 4.13).-The proportions (pertaining to sex) do not depart much fromthe expectations of (traffic) criminal justice practitionerswho have become used to finding males greatly predominantamong (traffic) offenders. The majority of traffic offenderswere males and are accounted for in 3701 (77,57%) observedcases (see table 4.12 and figure 4.14). Male trafficoffenders were responsible for the greatest number of trafficoffences: 1814 (68,69% ) driving offences, 2068 (86,17%)vehicle-related offences and 1068 (79,82%) document offences(see table 4.13 and figure 4.15). Certain findingspertaining to race and occupation of traffic offenders arenoteworthy. An overall total of 3480 (54,55%) trafficoffences were committed by Bla~ks (see table 4.15 and figures4.17 and 4.18). Whites featured predominantly in thecommission of driving offences and these are accounted for in1235 (46,76%) cases, while Blacks featured predominantly invehicle-related and document offence commission. A total of1883 (78,46%) vehicle-related offences were committed byBlacks, while 770 (57,55%) document offences were alsocommitted by traffic offenders in this racial group. Therewere more Black traffic offenders as compared to other races.Blacks constituted 2291 (48,02%) cases, while 1422 (29,80%)traffic offenders were Whites (see table 4.14 and figure4.16).310

Professional drivers committed more traffic offences thantraffic offenders in the other occupation categories and werepenalized for cOlll11litting 577 (21,85%) driving offences, 920(38,33%) vehicle-related offences and 520 (38,86%) documentoffences (see table 4.18 and figure 4.21). This trend can beascribed to the notion that professional drivers arecontingent upon operating motor vehicles for their livelihood.Traffic offenders in the professional, executive andmanagerial~occupationcategory featured predominantly indriving offence commission. A total of 695 (26,32%) drivingoffences were committed by traffic offenders in thisoccupation category. Professional drivers featuredpredominantly in respect of vehicle-related and documentoffence commission. A total of 920 (38,33%) vehicle-relatedoffences were committed by professional drivers, whiledocument offence commission is accounted for in 520 (38,86%)cases (see table 4.18 and figure 4.21).Traffic offences are not equally distributed. This impliesthe differential nature of ecological distribution. In someareas, traffic crime is endemic, while in others it is rarelycommitted. Rampant traffic offence commission can, incertain instances, be ascribed to inadequate traffic policingand the negative attitude of motor vehicle drivers towardssuch policing. Traffic offences committed in Richards Bayare accounted for in 1030 (39,00%) driving offences, 366(15,25%) vehile-related offences and 280 (20,93%) documentoffences (see table 4.20 and figures 4.23 and 4.24).Richards Bay produced 1296 (27,16%) traffic offenders (seetable 4.19 and figure 4.22). A total of 1357 (21,27%)traffic offences were committed in Empangeni. Drivingoffence commission was prevalent in Richards Bay, whilevehicle-related offence commission (489 (20,38%) cases) anddocument offence commission (313 (23,39%) cases) were rife in311

Empangeni (see table 4.20 and figures 4.23 and 4.24). Thedegree of intensity of traffic law enforcement is not the same- due to ecological distribution of traffic offenders andtraffic offences.7.2.3 Traffic law enforcementThere are obstacles and resistance to traffic law enforcementand traffic safety. In a pluralistic and democratic society,resistance to innovations that affect personal habits,convenience and mobility, or which pose an economic threat areto be expected. This problem is not unique to the realm ofpreventing traffic crimes since it is encountered in virtuallyevery contemporary constructive research on penalization oftraffic offenders. Such negativistic responses are bothparadoxic and frustrating. It has been established thatthere are three traffic law enforcement organizations in themagisterial district of Lower Umfolozi:* Natal Provincial Administration, based at Empangeni:* Empangeni municipality traffic department: and* Richards Bay municipality traffic department.Empangeni traffic officers fall under the superintendent incharge of the traffic department and security (see figure5.2). It is evident that there is no proper differentiationof this traffic department and traffic officers also performother remote duties relating to fire services, security andcivil defence. There are no reserve traffic wardens employedby Empangeni municipality.312

Traffic law enforcement in Richards Bay appears to bewell-organized (see figure 5.3).Hierarchically, the chief traffic officer is the head of thetraffic department and is assisted by three assistantsuperintendents: administration, traffic law enforcement andtraffic engineering. Traffic officers perform their dutiesunder the supervision of the assistant superintendent incharge of traffic law enforcement. Newly-appointed trafficofficers ~receiveinduction under the supervision of theassistant superintendent, administration. Reserve trafficwardens are employed by Richards Bay traffic department (seefigure 5.3). The various functions performed by reservetraffic wardens are discussed in chapter 5, paragraph 5.4.2.It has also been established that traffic officers performtheir duties under onerous conditions. The greatest problem,when dealing with the question of how to run an enforcementagency effectively and efficiently, is no doubt the problem ofthe shortage of traffic officers. As a result, trafficofficers are unable to patrol their areas adequately. Toperform the duties of a traffic officer is not always pleasantbecause motor vehicle drivers may react selfishly andinconsiderately and because a traffic offence may be regardedas immoral or in any other sense reprehensible. The motorvehicle driver-traffic officer relationship is therefore aparticularly conflict-prone one.7.2.4Penalization of traffic offenders7.2.4.1Aims of the researchDiscrepanciespenalization ofThe objective(disparities) exist with regard to thetraffic offenders (see tables 6.10 - 6.27).of effecting correlations with regard to313

specific demographic variables has also been realized (seechapter 4). It has been ascertained that 4771 trafficoffenders were found guilty and penalized between 01 Januaryand 30 June 1990. No scientific research into thepenalization of traffic offenders in the magisterial districtof Lower Umfolozi has been undertaken in the past and for thisreason the researcher has bridged the gapsubstantive knowledge about this phenomenon.in respect of7.2.4.2 Problems encounteredSome particulars of traffic offenders were not fully recordedin the written notices to appear in court hence the"unknown" cases (see Annexure B). In certain instances,sections of the Road Traffic ordinance No. 21 of 1966 (as wellas regulations made thereunder) and the Road Traffic Act No.29 of 1989 (as well as regulations made thereunder) were notcorresponding with the descriptions of traffic offences. Ithas also been found that literature on penalization of trafficoffenders is rare. Particulars of traffic offenders such asrace, age, sex, etc. were not reflected in the Criminal RecordBook (J546), despite the fact that provision is made in thisofficial register to have these partiCUlars recorded. Noprovision is made to record the date when the traffic offencewas committed.7.2.4.3 The traffic officer in courtIt has been established that traffic officers are persons whoset the traffic criminal justice system in motion (see figure4.1) • They appear in court as state witnesses. Trafficofficers in the magisterial district of Lower Umfoloziexpressed displeasure at the manner in which they are treatedin court and stated that, whilst aiding the prosecution, they314

viewed themselves as being "tried for traffic offences theynever committed" (see chapter 5, paragraph 5.7 (k». Trafficofficers are sometimes not adequately conversant with thegeneral principles of effective testimony.7.2.4.4 Road traffic legislation(a)Traffic offence adjudication under the road trafficlegislation is reasonably adequate in. the determinationof guilt or innocence. However, traffic case processingis beset by numerous problems and this adversely affectimprovements in traffic management and safety.(b) Adjudication of traffic offences has made littledemonstrable contribution toward newly formed societalgoals of the promotion of traffic safety and theimprovement of driver behaviour on public roads.It hashad little measurable effect in deterring initial orsubsequent traffic violation by motor vehicle drivers.It is therefore apparent that criminal court traffic caseprocessing is inadequate and ineffective.(c) Traffic offence adjudication is a key component oftraffic legislation. It is thus obvious that thepromotion of traffic safety is contingent uponeffectiveness of adjudication within the traffic criminaljustice system.(d) Traffic offences do not have the same degree ofseriousness or potential seriousness; thus, trafficoffences should not command the same degree of trafficcriminal processing, sanction time and resources. It315

can therefore be noticed that traffic case adjudicationinadequately differentiates between the problem driverand the average traffic offender.7.2.4.5 Discretion in penalizationPenalization of traffic offenders is pre-eminently a matterfor the discretion of the trial court. The chief advantageof discretion can be summed up in one word:Discretion enables traffic lawflexibility.to take into account thefeatures of the individual traffic offender. Trafficlegislation without discretion cannot fully take into accountthe need for tailoring results to unique facts andcircumstances in particular traffic cases. It has beenestablished that the justification for discretion is often theneed for individualized traffic criminal justice.Individualization of penalization cannot be achieved withoutthe exercise of discretion.7.2.4.6 Penalization of traffic offendersThe following forms of penalization were applied:* admission of guilt fine;* fine, spot fine, deferred fine;* fine or imprisonment;-* suspended sentence;* periodical imprisonment;* treatment in a rehabilitation centre;316

* whipping;* cancellation and endorsement of drivers' licences andfine for failure to appear in court (see table 6.1,figure 6.1 and Annexure B).The majority of traffic offenders paid an admission of guiltfine and these are accounted for in 3457 (71,65%) of the totaltraffic cases (see table 6.1 and figure 6.1). Payment of anadmission of guilt fine can therefore be ascribed to a varietyof considerations,of the individual traffic offender.depending on the prevailing circumstancesMost traffic offenderspreferred to pay an admission of guilt fine to avoid furtherintricacies of litigation. It has also been established thattraffic offenders paid fines in its variance such as deferredfines and spot fines. Payment of fines saved trafficoffenders from serving terms of imprisonment. It was alsofound that payment of an admission of guilt fine wasnotallowed in respect of serious traffic offences (the so-called"direct charges") such as reckless and/or negligent driving,driving under the influence of alcohol, etc. Periodicalimprisonment was rarely imposed. Only one traffic offenderwas sentenced to this form of penalization. Trafficoffenders had their sentences Whollyor partially suspended(see Annexure B). It has been established that 45 trafficoffenders were not penalized,but cautioned and discharged.Traffic officers interviewed expressed concernthat trafficlaw enforcement is brought into disrepute since trafficoffenders know that they might be cautioned and discharged andthus escape penalization. Treatment in a rehabilitationcentre was rarely imposed and only three traffic offenderswere subjected to such treatment. Drivers' licences wererarely cancelled.Only one driver's licence was cancelled.Drivers' licences were not frequently endorsed and only nine317

drivers' licences were endorsed. Failure to appear in courtwas penalized in respect of 29 traffic offenders (see table6.1 and figure 6.1 "other forms of penalization").Deferred fines were not so frequently imposed. It isappropriate to briefly highlight important findings relatingto the distribution of penalization according to:*****traffic offences;race;sex;age;occupation;* amount paid in respect of an admission of guilt fine,fine, deferred fine and spot fine;* term of imprisonment;* court appearances; and* disparities in penalizing traffic offenders.Most traffic offenders paid an admission of guilt fine inrespect of three discrete categories of traffic offences andthese are accounted for in 1483 (69,82%) driving offences.1518 (80,66%) vehicle-related offences and 456 (55,68%)document offences (see table 6.2 and figure 6.2). No trafficoffenders had their sentences suspended for committingvehicle-related offences. It has been established that atotal of 1709 (74.24%) Black traffic offenders paid an318

admission of guilt fine, while 1389 (97,00%) White trafficoffenders paid an admission of guilt fine (see table 6.3 andfigure 6.3). Traffic offence commission waspverwhelmingly amale activity. A total of 3004 (80,80%) male trafficoffenders paid an admission of guilt fine, while payment of anadmission of guilt fine by female offenders is accounted forin 429 (76,33%) traffic cases (see table 6.4 and figure 6.4).There were more traffic offenders in the age groups 31-40-years and a total of 1288 (90,39%) traffic offenders in thisage group paid an admission of guilt fine. other forms ofpenalization were not applicable to traffic offenders agedbetween 71 and 80 years, and these offenders all (N=14) paidan admission of guilt fine (see table 6.5 and figure 6.5).It is apparent from this research that all traffic offendersin the professional, executive and managerial occupationcategory paid an admission of guilt fine and this was observedin 858 (100%) cases (see table 6.6 and figure 6.6).Similarly, the same trend can be noticed in respect of trafficoffenders in the unskilled occupation category andthis wasobserved in 82 (100%) cases. Professional drivers paid anadmission of guilt fine in 1311 (99,47%) cases (see table 6.6and figure 6.6).The majority of traffic offenders paidamounts ranging between RID. DD and R99. DD and this isaccounted for in 2235 (46,85%) traffic cases. This impliesthat, according to traffic officers and presiding judicialofficers, some traffic law violations did not justify theimposition of heavy fines, although 26 (0,54%) trafficoffenders paid amounts exceeding RI000.00(see table 6.7 andfigures 6.7 and 6.8). Most traffic offenders paid anadmission of guilt fine, while others paid fines, deferredfines and spot fines.Imprisonment was coupled with theoption of paying a fine. A total of 157 (3,30%) trafficoffenders were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from319

10 to 99 days, while only two (0,04%) offenders were sentencedto this form of penalization ranging from 500 to 599 days (seetable 6.8 and figure 6.9). There are two trial courts in themagisterial district of Lower Umfolozi:* the magistrate's court at Empangeni;and* KwaMbonambi periodic court.It has been established that the majority of traffic offendersdid not appear in either of the two courts and these areaccounted for in 4029 (84,45%) traffic cases (see table 6.9and figures 6.10 and 6.11). Non-appearances can be ascribedto payment of an admission of guilt fine and spot fine. Atotal of 730 (15,30%) traffic offenders appeared for trial inthe Empangeni magistrate's court, while appearances inKwaMbonambi periodic court are accounted for in 12 (0, 25%)cases.It has been also established that disparities doexist withregard to penalizing traffic offenders. Sentencingdisparities can be ascribed to a variety of reasons (seechapter 6, paragraph 6.5.4). Penalization remains a randomprocedure due to the absence of guiding scientificpre-sentence investigations. certain trends in the sphere ofdisparities in penalizing traffic offenders can be seen fromtables 6.10 to 6.27.two traffic offenders whoIt is evident from these tables that nohave committed the same trafficoffence were penalized in exactly the same way. Theprinciple of individualized penalization in the sphere oftraffic criminal justice played a cardinal role.time, the membersAt the sameof the public (including traffic officers)320

should not feel that variations in penalization were soglaring due to the exercise of discretion by presidingjUdicial officers (see tables 6~10 - 6.27).7.3 RECOMMENDATIONSThe following recolDlllendations are based on statistical dataemanating from this investigation and are by no meansprescriptive:7.3.1Driving offences7.3.1.1Driver training and educationDriver training, education and observance of traffic signsshould be concerned with the moulding of the driver intosomeone who knows and respects the rights of other road usersby fulfilling his own duties. The Driver Training Academycould be an ideal establishment to prioritize driver trainingand such an Academy could, for instance, be used to improvedriver performance. Further, drivers should be trained tostrive towards better vehicle control and obedience and thiswill contribute towards the prevention of traffic offences.7.3.1.2 Motor vehicle manufacturer-liabilityDrivers who become involved in unexplained or freak trafficoffences should be protected against accusations of improperdriving when the (defect) liability basically resides withcertain motor vehicle manufacturers. These defects are knownas "designed-in-dangers." Their defection and documentationunder these circumstances can be achieved through"on-the-spot" analysis by traffic officers trained ininvestigation of motor vehicles.321

7.3.2Vehicle-related offences7.3.2.1Periodic inspection of motor vehiclesThe effectiveness of a system of periodic inspection of motorvehicles instead of prosecution should be assessed. Thissystem will be realized if drivers acquaint themselves withregard to various aspects of vehicle maintenance such aschecks on brakes, steering, tyres, lights, etc. This alsoimplies that drivers should be encouraged to study themaintenance manuals of their vehicles and the time so spentcould result in less mechanical difficulty and better vehicleperformance.7.3.3Document offences7.3.3.1Issuing of drivers' licencesThe possibility of instituting a Drivers' Licences IssuingCommittee should be assessed for Natal ProvincialAdministration, based at Empangeni. This implies that theissuing of drivers' licences should not solely be vested withone examiner for learner drivers. The Natal ProvincialAdministration head office, based at Pietermartizburg, shouldassess the practicability and functioning of such a committee.Given the fact that traffic policing forms part of syllabus ofthe University of Zululand's Department of Criminal Justice,the possibility could, for instance, be considered with theview to have this department represented in the Drivers'Licences Issuing Committee.322

7.3.4 Traffic pOlicing and traffic engineeringTraffic law enforcement should not be slack during certaintimes of the day. In other words, there should be acontinuous well-balanced traffic law enforcement strategy.Reserve traffic wardens as well as retired traffic officialsshould be employed and used in various traffic matters such asparking problems and regulation of traffic flow during peakhours. - Foot patrols should be resorted·-to whenevercircumstances justify it.Traffic engineers should play asignificant role in studyingthe characteristic commission of traffic offences with theobjective of proper planning and designing of roads. Properanalyses of traffic problematics by traffic engineers willultimately contribute towards traffic safety and prevention oftraffic offences.7.3.5Penalization of traffic offenders7.3.5.1The points demerit systemThe implementation of a points demerit system should beassessed. This could, for instance, necessitate theintroduction of a Centralized National Resource Centre such asa computerized drivers' licences register where all trafficoffences and drivers could be computerized. This system willgrade traffic offences and traffic offenders according to thegravity of traffic offences by anumber or range of penaltypoints. Once a maximum of 12 points for instance have beenaccumulated within aspecific period (for instance 2 years),the standardized form of penalization should be reconsidered.The penalty points should be allocated according to theaverage level of fines imposed by courts. Traffic offences323

and traffic offenders should rate a fixed number of penaltypoints to ensure consistency. In certain instances, adiscretionary range of penalty points should apply to certaintraffic offences where the seriousness may vary considerablyfrom one case to another.7.3.5.2 corrective supervisionGiven the difficulty of dealing f-airly with unconscioustraffic offences (see chapter 3, paragraph 3.2), effortsshould be made to acquaint road users with traffic laws. TheUniversity of Zululand's Department of Criminal Justice could,for instance, assess the practicability of implementingcommunity service orders and in the form of studying certainsections (that have been violated) of the Road Traffic Actwith the view of having drivers submitted to a formal test.This will Ultimately be a form of corrective supervision andin such instances the University of Zululand's Department ofCriminal Justice could be actively involved in theconsideration and initiation of cOlIllDunity service orders andwill also be involved in the preparation of social inquiryreports in respect of traffic offenders.7.3.5.3 SurchargeEmployers should be discouraged from being tempted forcommerical reasons to impose tight delivery schedules whichare conducive to traffic law violations by professionaldrivers. Thought should be given to deriving a surchargepayable by employers in respect of fines for traffic offencescommitted by professional drivers during the course of theirduties.324

7.3.5.4 Establishment of a traffic courtIt is recommended that such a court can be ideal and effectivein urban areas (such as Empangeni and Richards Bay) only wherethere are voluminous traffic law violations, where theordinary criminal courts are overburdened, and computerfacilities are at hand. The magisterial district of LowerUmfolozi is fraught with voluminous traffic offences. Hence,the establishment of a tr~ffic court should be assessed.7.3.5.5 Establishment of a traffic penalization boardA traffic penalization board should be established for themagisterial district of Lower Umfolozi to examine and reviewsanctioning practices, investigate research related to trafficmatters and articulate guidance by way of formulating trafficcriminal justice policy objectives and making suggestions inrespect of implementing these objectives.7.3.5.6 ProbationIn appropriate cases, traffic offenders should be subjected toprobation. Probation is a suitable form of penalizationdealing with those traffic offenders who are in need of andamenable to correctional supervision. This would imply theappointment of a probation officer to attend to such cases.Reckless and negligent drivers and those with drinkingproblems especially need the kind of help that a probationofficer can provide. The implication of this recommendationis that the probation officer now becomes a "broklj!r", matchingthe traffic offender's needs with existing correctionaltreatment resources in the community. Probation shouldtherefore be utilized as a constructive measure of (traffic)penalization.325

7.3.6 Record-writingTraffic officers should be continu~usly'_remindedto fullyrecord particulars of traffic offenders and traffic offencesas this will benefit future research. The officials of themagisterial district of Lower Umfolozi (especially thoseattached to the magistrate's court at Empangeni)should alsobe urged to fully record particulars of traffic offenders asreflected in the criminal Record Book (J546).7.3.7 Future researchTraffic law enforcement organizations should undertakeresearch projects themselves or support research projects bymaking records available to social researchers. Part of theeffort to establish and promote a more positive awareness andperception of traffic policing, engineering, safety andprevention of traffic offences, depends on scientific researchthat should be undertaken. The image of the traffic officershould be actively enhanced. His sense of responsibility,loyalty, educational level, in-service training and ability tocope professionally with his tasks should receive toppriority.Research onResearch in this area should be prioritized.penalization of traffic offenders should beextended to other areas so as to ascertain across-culturalpicture. Future research in this area will greatly improvethe availability of literature in traffic science.7.4 SUMMARYResearch on penalization of traffic offenders brought to lightmany issues. These issues relate to the most importantfindings with regard to driving offences, vehicle-relatedoffences, document offences; conscious, unconscious and326

schedule traffic offences. It should be noted that certainfindings portray the incidence of traffic offences; types ofmotor vehicles involved in traffic offence commission; thedynamics of traffic offences and (correlations) analyses ofdemographic variables (such as race, sex, age, etc.) oftraffic offenders. There are three traffic controlorganizations in the magisterial district of Lower Umfoloziand the intensity of traffic law enforcement differs. Keyfindings pertaining to penalization of traffic offenders areaccordingly discussed in this chapter and these relate tointer alia, problems encountered (factors which hampered thisresearch), three discrete categories of traffic offences,penalization of traffic offenders, etc. Recommmendationshave been made by the researcher and are based on keyfindings. These recommendations are aimed at the preventionof traffic offences and setting forth suggestions forimproving the traffic penalization process. The ultimateobjective of penalization of traffic offenders in themagisterial district of Lower Umfolozi should be to controland restrict the incidence, fluctuation and movement oftraffic offences.327

BIBLIOGRAPHYBarkhuizen, B. P. 1967.Barnett, R. E. & 1977.Hagel, J.Binder, A. & Geis, G. 1983.Bing, I. 1990.Blomquist, G.C. 1988.Booth, W.L. 1980.Brandstatter, A.F. & 1971.Hyman, A.A.Burchell, E.M., Milton, 1983.J.R.L. & Burchell, J.M.'n Psigologies-pedagogiesestudie van Enkele Aspektevan Menslike Gedrag op diePad met spesiale verwysingna die Padveiligheids-probleem.Ongepubliseerde D. Ed.-proefskrif. Pretoria:Universitei t van suidAfrika.Assessing the criminal:Restitution.Retribution andthe Legal Process. Cambridge:BallingerPublishingCo.Methods of Research inCriminology and CriminalJus tic e NewYork:McGraw-Hill.Criminal Procedure andSentencing in theMagistrates' Court. London:Sweet & Maxwell.The Regulation of MotorVehicle and Traffic Safety.London: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.Police Management ofTraffic AccidentPrevention. Springfield:Charles C. Thomas.Fundamentals of Law Enforcement.Beverly Hills:Glencoe Press.South African Criminal Lawand Procedure. Second edition.Cape Town: Juta & Co.Ltd.328

Cavan, R.S. 1958. Criminology. New York:Thomas Y. Crowell.Chame1in, N.C., Fox, 1979.V.B. & Whisenand, P.M.C1ark, W.E. 1982.Cloete, M.G.T. & 1984.Conradie, H.Cloete, M.G.T. & 1990.Stevens, R. (Eds.)Cohen, J. & Preston, B. 1968.Conklin, J.E. 1986.Cooper, W.E. 1990.cronj~, G. 1982.Davies, E. 1960.Introduction to CriminalJustice. Second edition.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:PrenticeHall.Traffic Management andCollision Investigation.Englewood Cliffs, NewJersey: Prentice-Hall.Introduction to TrafficScience. Durban: Butterworths.Criminology. Halfway House:Southern Book Publishers.Causes and Prevention ofRoad Accidents. London:Faber & Faber.Criminology. Secondedition. New York:MacMillan PUblishing Co.Road Traffic Legislation.Cape Town: Juta & Co. Ltd.The Delinquent as a Personlity(Part I). Pretoria:University of South Africa.Roads and their Traffic.London:Blackie.Davis, M. 1983. How to make thefit the crime.93(1) July: 727.punishmentEthics,Dienstein, W.Dix, M.C. &Layzell, A.D.1974.1983.Technics for the CrimeInvestigator. Secondedition. Springfield:Charles C. Thomas.Road Users and the Police.London: Croom Helm Ltd.329

Duffee, D.E.Du Plessis, J.Du Toit, E., De Jager,A., Paizes, A., st.Quinton Skeen, A. &Van der Merwe, S.Erlank, E.J. &Roux, J.P"Ferreira, J.C.Field, S.Fitzgerald, J.D. &Cox, S.M.Flew, A.Gardiner, J.A.1989.1981.1991.1967.1967.1992.1987.1954.1969.corrections: Practice andPolicy. New York: RandomHouse.Roekelose Motorbestuur- 'nKriminologiese Ondersoek inPotchefstroom gedurende1977 en 1978.o n g e pUb 1 i see r d eM.A.-verhandeling.Potchefstroom:PotchefstroomseUniversiteit vir C.H.O.Commentary on the CriminalProcedure Act.Johannesburg:Juta & Co.'n Ondersoek na die sielkundigeen sosiologieseKenmerke van die Padongelukmaker met die oog op dieBepaling van die Doeltreffenheidvan Reklame enPublisiteit. Verslag, Suid­Afrikaanse Padveiligheidsraad:Pretoria.Strafprosesreg in dieLanddroshof. Johannesburg:Juta & Kie.The effect of temperatureon crime. British Journalof Criminology, Vol. 32 ( 3 )Summer: 340.Research Methods in Criminal Justice:An IntroductionChicago:Nelson-Hall.The justification ofpunishment. Philosophy,October: 292-295.Traffic and the Police:Variation in LawEnforcement Policy.Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.330

Gibbons, D.C.Gilbert, J.N.1981.1980.Delinquent Behaviour. Thirdedition. Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Criminal Investigation.Columbus: Merrill.Goode, W.J. &Hatt, P.K.1952.Methods of Social Research.Tokyo:McGraw-Hill.Gordon, M.A.Glaser, D.&1991.The use and effects of financialpenalties in municipalcourts. criminology­An Interdisciplinary Journal,November, Vol. 29(4):653.Grupp, S.E.1971.Theories of Punishment.London:Indiana UniversityPress.Hagan, F.E.1989.Introduction toCriminology-Theories.Methods and CriminalBehaviour.Chicago:Nelson­Hall.Hale, C.D.1977.Fundamentals of PoliceAdministration.Boston:Hollbrook.Halleck, S.L.1967.Psychiatry and the Dilemmasof Crime. New York: Harper& Row Publishers.Halnan, P. &Spencer, J.1982.wilkinson's Road TrafficOffences. Eleventh edition.London:Butler & Tanner Ltd.Hand, B.A., Sherman,A.V. & Cavanagh, M.E.Hand, B.A., Sherman,A.V. & cavanagh, M.E.1976.1980.Traffic Investigation andControl. Columbus:CharlesE. Merrill.Traffic Investigation andControl. Second edition.Columbus:Charles E.Merrill.331

Henham, R.J. 1990.Hiemstra, V.G. 1977.Hood, R. 1972.Hurwitz, S. 1952.Iannone, N.F. 1975.Jacob, H. 1974.Karmen, A. 1990.King, J. & 1975.Tipperman, M.Klepper, S. & Nagin, D. 1989.Kriel, H.J. 1974.Sentencing Principles andMagistrate's sentencingBehaviour.Aldershot:AveburyGower PUblishing Co.Introduction to the Law ofProcedure. Durban:Butterworths.Sentencing the MotoringOffender:A study ofMagistrate's Views andPractices.London:Heinemann.Criminology. London:GeorgeAlIen & Unwin Ltd.Supervision of PolicePersonnel. Second edition.Englewood Cliffs, NewJersey:Prentice-Hall.The Potential for Reform ofCriminal Justice. BeverlyHills: Sage Publications.Crime Victims AnIntroduction toVictimology. Secondedition.California:BrooksjCole Publishing Co.Offence of driving whileintoxicated:the developmentof statutes and case law inNew York. Hofstra Law Review(3) : 541.The deterrent effect ofperceived certainty andseverity of punishmentrevisited. Criminology-AnInterdisciplinary Journal,Vol. 27(4):721-723.Enforcement of Road TrafficLegislation and theAdministration of Justice.Pretoria:council forScientific and IndustrialResearch.332

Leedy, P.D.Leonard, V.A.Limpert, R.Little, A.D.Louw, D.A., VanHeerden, T.J. &smit, P.R.Lund, J.R.Mannheim, H.Margolis, J.Mettler, G.B.Middendorf, W.Middleton, A.J.1985.1971.1984.1970.1978.1979.1965.1977.1977.1968.1974.333Practical Research:Planningand Design. Third edition.New York:MacMillan.Police Traffic Control.Springfield:Charles C.Thomas.Motor Vehicle AccidentReconstruction and CauseAnalysis. Second edition.Virginia:Michie Co.The state of the Art ofTraffic Safety: AComprehensive Review ofExisting Information. NewYork: Praeger Publishers.Kriminologie Woordeboek.Durban:Vaktaalburo.Discretion, principles andprecedent in sentencing(part one). South AfricanJournal of Criminal Law andCriminology, November, Vol.3(3):207.Comparative Criminology(Vol. II). London:Routledge& Kegan Paul.Punishment. Abstracts onCriminology and Penology,Vol. 17:609.Criminal Investigation.Boston:Hollbrook.The Effectiveness ofPunishment-Especially inRelation to TrafficOffences. South Hackensack,New Jersey:Fred B. Rothman& Co.Road traffic and abuse ofcriminal sanctions. Journalof Contemporary Roman DutchLaw, May.

Milton, J.R.L. &Fuller, N.M.More, H.W.Natal, Province ofNational Advisory Commissionon CriminalJustice standards andGoals.Nettler, G.Odendaal, J.R.O'Hara, C.E.Oosthuizen, L.Packer, H.L.Potgieter, P.J.1971.1975.1966.1973.1984.1968.1976.1975.1968.1983.South African Criminal Lawand Procedure (Vol Ill).cape Town: Juta.Principles and Proceduresin the Administration ofJustice. New York: Wiley.Road Traffic Ordinance,Ordinance No. 21 of 1966.Johannesburg: Lex Patria.Police. Washington: 227.",E",x,::,p"-:"-l-"a,-,i,:-,n~i",,n,-,g,--,,c,-,r,-l.=.· ..,m'-"

Pursley, R.D.Rabie, M.A. &Strauss, S.A.Radelet, L.A.Redgment, J.Reid, S.T.Reid, S.T.Roberts, H.J.Ross, A.Ryan, T.W.Saunders, J.G.M. &Wiechers, M.Schultz, 0.0. &Hunt, D.R.1984.1985.1973.1990.1976.1981.1971.1975.1973.1984.1990.Introduction to CriminalJustice. Third edition. NewYork. Macmillan.Punishment-An Introductionto Principles. Fourth edition.Johannesburg: LexPatriaeThe Police and thecommunity. BeverlyHills:Glencoe Press.Criminal Procedure-Act andCases. Pretoria:Digma.Crime and criminology.Illinois:Dryden Press.The Correctional SystemAn Introduction. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.The Causes. Ecology andPrevention of TrafficA c cid e n t sspringfield:Charles C.Thomas.On Guilt. Responsibilityand Punishment.London:Stevens & Sons.An Investigation into thePsychological FactorsContributing to RoadAccidents in Rhodesia.Unpublished M. Comm.d i s s e r tat ion •Pretoria:University ofSouth Africa.Traffic Law Reform: A ComparativeLaw Study. Pretoria:Universityof SouthAfrica.Traffic Investigation andEnforcement. Third edition.California:Custom PublishingCo.335

SChwing, R.C. & 1980.Albers, W.A. (Eds.)Smit, B.F. 1989.smit, B.F. & Potgieter, 1982.P.J.South Africa, Republic 1977.ofsocietal Risk Assessment:How Safe is Safe Enough?New York:Plenum.Police science. Pretoria:University of South Africa.Police science. Pretoria:University of South Africa.criminal Procedure Act, ActNo. 51 of 1977. Pretoria:Government Printer.South Africa, RepublicofSouth Africa, RepublicofStoker, H.G.Stuckey, G.B.Toch, H.Trip, H.A.Van der Walt, P.J.Van der Walt, P.J.,Croti~, G., smit,B.F. & Van derWesthuizen, J.Van der Westhuizen, J.1989.1991.1961.1979.1961.1938.1982.1977.1977.Road Traffic Act, Act No.29 of 1989. Pretoria:Government Printer.Road Traffic Amendment Act,Act No. 73 of 1991.Pretoria:Government Printer.Beginsels en Metodes in dieWetenskap.Potchefstroom:ProRege.Evidence for the LawEnforcement Officer. Thirdedition. NewYork:McGraw­HiH.Legal and criminalPsychology. New York:Holt,Rinehart & Winston.Road Traffic and itsControl. London:Arnold.Kriminologie: 'n Inleiding.Pretoria:HAUM.Criminology-An Introduction.Pretoria:Universityof South Africa.An Introduction toCriminological Research.pretoria:University ofSouth Africa.336

Van der Westhuizen, J.(Ed. )Van Heerden, T.J.Van Heerden, T.J.Van Heerden, T.J.,smit, B.F. &potgieter, P.J.Viljoen Commission,Waldron, R.J.Walls, H.J. &Brownlie, A.R.Welman, A.Weston, P.B.Whitlock, F.A.1982.1976.1982.1983.1976.1980.1970.1971.1978.1971.Crimes of Violence in SouthAfrica. Pretoria:Universityof South Africa.Introduction to PoliceScience.Pretoria:Universityof South Africa.Introduction to PoliceScience.pretoria:Universityof South Africa.Die Beeld van Verkeerspolisi~ringin suid-Afrika.Ongepubliseerde Verslag.Pretoria: universiteit vansuid-Afrika.Commission of Inquiry intothe Penal System of theRepublic of South Africa.Pretoria:GovernmentPrinter.The Criminal JusticeSystem-An Introduction.Second edition.Boston:Houghton Mifflin Co.Drink. Drugs and Driving.London:Sweet & Maxwell.Die Administratiewe Kostevan Verkeersboetes van dieMunisipaliteit vanPot c h e f s t r 0 0 m •OngepubliseerdeM.Comm.-verhandeling.Potchefstroom:PotchefstroomseUniversiteit vir C.H.O.The Police Traffic ControlFunction.springfield:Charles C. Thomas.Death on the Road - A studyin Social Violence.London:TavistockPublications.337

Willett, T.C.Wilson, O.W.McLaren, R.C.Wright, E.V.&1964.1977.1973.Criminal on the Road - Astudy of Serious MotoringOffences and Those WhoCommit Them.London:TavistockPublications.Police Administration.Fourth edition. New York:McGraw-Hill.The Politics of PunishmentA critical Analysis ofPrisons in America. NewYork: Harper & RowPublishers.338

ANNEXURETHE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZIAKwa-MbonambiNseleni~Ng~elezanaNkwalini10 5 0 10 20 kmI I I !Source: 1:500 000 Topographic Map .1986 Dept. of Survey S.Land Information, Mowbray.339

ANNEXURE BINFORMATION (CONTENT ANALYSIS)SCHEDULE"PENALIZATION OF TRAFFIC OFFENDERS IN THE MAGISTERIALDISTRICT OF LOWER UMFOLOZI."SCHEDULE NO:.••.••.••••••••.•SECTION A:ADMINISTRATIVE PARTICULARSV.01 POLICE STATIONEMPANGENI 01RICHARDS BAY 02KWAMBONAMBI 03UNKNOWN 04V.02 COURTEMPANGENI 01KWAMBONAMBI PERIODIC COURT 02NON-APPEARANCES 03340

SECTION B: THE TRAFFIC OFFENDERV.03 RACEBLACK 01WHITE 02COLOURED 03ASIAN 04UNKNOWN 05V.04 SEXMALE 1 01FEMALE~02UNKNOWN ~ 03341

V.05 AGE18 - 20 YEARS - 0121 - 30 YEARS 0231 - 40 YEARS 0341 - 50 YEARS 0451 - 60 YEARS 0561 - 70 YEARS 0671 - 80 YEARS 07UNKNOWN 08V.06 NATIONALITYS.A. CITIZEN 01FOREIGNER 02UNKNOWN 03342

V.07 OCCUPATION- -GENERAL LABOURER 01SELF-EMPLOYED 02SEMI-SKILLED LABOURER 03PROFESSIONAL WORKERS 04TECHNICAL AND RELATED WORKERS 05STUDENT OR SCHOLAR 06EXECUTIVE AND MANAGERIAL 07TRANSPORT SERVICES 08PUBLIC RELATIONS 09ADMINISTRATIVE 10AGRICULTURAL 11ARMED FORCES 12SECURITY SERVICES 13UNEMPLOYED 14UNKNOWN 15343

SECTION C :THE TRAFFIC OFFENCEV.08 ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTIONEMPANGENI 01RICHARDS BAY 02N2 03R619 04R34 05KWAMBONAMBI 06NGWELEZANA 07B10jUVS* 08UNKNOWN 09* UMHLATHUZI VALLEY SUGAR COMPANY344

V.09 DATE OF OFFENCE: MONTH OF THE YEARJANUARYO:LFEBRUARY 02MARCH 03APRIL 04MAY 05JUNE 06UNKNOWN 07V.:LO DAY OF THE WEEKMONDAYO:LTUESDAY 02WEDNESDAY 03THURSDAY 04FRIDAY 05SATURDAY 06SUNDAY 07UNKNOWN 08345

V.11 TIME OF OFFENCEEARLY MORNING (00HOO-07H59) 01DAYTIME (08HOO - 15H59) 02LATE AFTERNOON (16HOO - 17H59) 03EARLY EVENING (18HOO - 21H59) 04LATE NIGHT (22HOO - 24HOO) 05UNKNOWN 06TYPE OF TRAFFIC OFFENCEV.12 DRIVING OFFENCESSPEEDING 01DISREGARD A RED ROBOT 02FAIL TO WEAR A SAFETY BELT (DRIVER) 03DISREGARD A "STOP" SIGN 04NO RED FLAG ON LOAD PROJECTION 05FAIL TO INDICATE INTENTION TO TURN LEFTOR RIGHT 06INSECURE LOAD 07346

FAIL TO CANCEL INDICATOR AFTER USE 08TURN LEFT WITHOUT DUE CARE OR FAILING TOKEEP LEFT 09ALLOWS A PERSON TO STAND ON STEP WHILSTVEHICLE IS IN MOTION 10PASSENGER FAILS TO WEAR A SAFETY BELT 11OVERTAKE ON A BARRIER LINE 12OVERTAKE ON A LEFT LANE 13.DISREGARD A "NO ENTRY" SIGN 14EMERGENCY WARNING SIGNS NOT DISPLAYEDAS PRESCRIBED 15DRIVES ON RIGHT ROADWAY OF DUAL CARRIAGE WAY 16PARKED IN A TAXI ZONE 17FAILS TO WEAR A PROTECTIVE HELMET 18CARRYING PASSENGERS IN GOODS VEHICLEWHILE LEGS ARE HANGING OUTSIDE 19FAILS TO STEER VEHICLE TO IMMEDIATE LEFTOF CENTRE OF ROADWAY WHEN TURNING RIGHT 20WILFULLY MAKES NOISE WITH EXHAUST BRAKE 21VEHICLE NOT PARKED TO A STANDSTIL 22347

OBSTRUCTS FREE FLOW OF TRAFFIC (STOPSIN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD) 23LOAD OBSCURING DRIVER'S VIEW 24INCONSIDERATE DRIVING 25FAILS TO YIELD TO A PEDESTRIAN WITHINA PEDESTRIAN CROSSING 26CROSSING A BARRIER LINE 27PARKS AT DANGEROUS ENTRANCE 28DISREGARD "NO STOP" SIGN 29DRIVES ACROSS A DIVIDED SPACE (RIGHTSIDE) OF DUAL CARRIAGEWAY 30DISREGARD "NO U-TURN" SIGN 31.RECKLESS OR NEGLIGENT DRIVING 32DRIVES IN WRONG TRAFFIC LANE 33FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY 34DISREGARD "YELLOW LINE" 35OVERTAKE ON A TRAFFIC ISLAND 36DISREGARD A ONE WAY STREET 37348

..STOPPING AT INTERSECTION CAUSINGAN OBSTRUCTION 38.PARKED WITHIN 1,5M OF FIRE HYDRANT 39EXCEEDS 1 HOUR PARKING 40STOPS IN ROADWAY WITHIN 1M OF EDGE 41ENTERING ROADWAY WHEN UNSAFE TO DO SO 42OVERTAKES IN THE FACE OF ONCOMINGVEHICLE 43FAILS TO STOP ON TRAFFIC OFFICER'SINSTRUCTION IN UNIFORM 44HINDERS (OBSTRUCTS) THE TRAFFIC OFFICERIN THE EXECUTION OF HIS DUTIES BYFLASHING LIGHTS TO WARN APPROACHINGTRAFFIC OF THE PRESENCE OF A SPEEDTRAP 45DISREGARD CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY ATRAFFIC OFFICER 46DISREGARD "NO PUBLIC MOTOR VEHICLES"SIGN 47PARKED WITHIN 5M OF INTERSECTION 48FAIL TO KEEP LEFT WHEN TURNING RIGHT(CUTTING A CORNER) 49ALLOWSENGINE TO RUN WHILE RE-FILLINGFUEL 50349

DISREGARD "ROAD MARKINGS" 51DISREGARD "RIGHT TURN" 52FURNISHES MISLEADING/SUPPLYING FALSEINFORMATION 53DISREGARD "ROAD CLOSED" SIGN 54DISREGARD A "CHANNELIZING LINE" 55DISREGARD "NO PARKING" SIGN 56FAILS TO REPORT AN ACCIDENT WHERE APERSON HAS BEEN KILLED 57VEHICLE DRIVEN WITHOUT OWNER'S CONSENT 58DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXI-CATING LIQUOR 59NOT APPLICABLE 60V.13 VEHICLE-RELATED OFFENCESDEFECTIVE BRAKES 01DEFECTIVE TYRES 02DEFECTIVE STOP/BRAKE LIGHTS 03NO FUEL/INEFFICIENT CAP 04350

DEFECTIVE/NO DIRECTION INDICATORS 05DEFECTIVE STARTER 06NO WARNING TRIANGLES 07DEFECTIVE (NO) DRIVING BEAMS (HEAD-LIGHTS) 08.REGISTRATION MARKS (PLATES) NOT DISPLAYEDOR AFFIXED 09DEFECTIVE FIRE EXTINGUISHER 10PUBLIC VEHICLE NOT EQUIPPED WITH FIREEXTINGUISHER 11DEFECTIVE HOOTER OR WARNING DEVICE 12DEFECTIVE EXHAUST 13DEFECTIVE STEERING MECHANISM 14DEFECTIVE ELECTRICAL WIRING 15VEHICLE NOT EQUIPPED WITH SAFETY BELTS 16ILLEGIBLE (COLOUR NOT MAINTAINED) NUMBERPLATES 17DEFECTIVE SPEEDOMETER 18DEFECTIVE ENTRANCE/EXIT DOORS 19351

DEFECTIVE VIEW MIRRORS 20SIREN FITTED ILLEGALLY 21EXCESSIVE SMOKE EMITTED WHILE TRAVELLING 22NO CHEVRON (DEFECTIVE) AT BACK OFVEHICLE 23PUBLIC VEHICLE (BUS) UNTIDY 24REGISTRATION MARK (NUMBER PLATES)OBSCURED BY TOWBAR 25DEFECTIVE WINDSCREEN 26FUEL LEAKAGE 27NOT APPLICABLE 28V.14 DOCUMENT OFFENCESNO DRIVER'S LICENCE 01FALSIFIED (FRAUD) DRIVER'S LICENCE 02UNLICENSED MOTOR VEHICLE (EXPIREDCLEARANCE CERTIFICATE) 03CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE NOT DISPLAYED 04NO EXEMPTION PERMIT FOR ABNORMAL VEHICLES 05352

PASSENGER OVERLOAD 06NO C.O.F.* 07C.O.F. NOT IN VEHICLE 08NO P.D.P.* 09P.D.P. NOT IN VEHICLE 10GOODS VEHICLE OVERLOAD 11UNLICENSED PERSON PERMITTED (ALLOWED) TODRIVE 12NO MASS INFORMATION PLATE ON LEFT SIDE OFGOODS VEHICLE 13FAIL TO REGISTER VEHICLE WITHIN 21 DAYS 14DRIVES VEHICLE WHILST UNDER SUSPENSION 15FAIL TO RENEW LICENCE (CLEARANCE CERTI-FICATE) 16NOT APPLICABLE 17*C.O.F.:CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS*P.D.P.: PROFESSIONAL (PUBLIC) DRIVINGPERMIT353

V.15 TYPES OF VEHICLES INVOLVEDMOTORCYCLES 01PRIVATE VEHICLES 02PUBLIC MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXIS, BUSES) 03GOODS VEHICLES 04OTHER (TRACTORS, CARAVANS, TRAILERS,PAYLOADERS, CRANES) 05UNKNOWN 06SECTION D:PENALIZATIONV.16ADMISSION OF GUILT 01NOT APPLICABLE 02V.17FINE 01NOT APPLICABLE 02354

V.18IMPRISONMENT 01NOT APPLICABLE 02V.19FINE OR IMPRISONMENT 01NOT APPLICABLE 02V.20CAUTIONED AND DISCHARGED 01NOT APPLICABLE 02V.21SUSPENDED SENTENCE 01NOT APPLICABLE 02V.22·DEFERRED FINE 01NOT APPLICABLE 02355

V.23SPOT FINE 01.-NOT APPLICABLE 02V.24FINE OR IMPRISONMENT PLUSIMPRISONMENT SUSPENDED 01NOT APPLICABLE 02V.25FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OF WHICH HALF ISSUSPENDED 01NOT APPLICABLE 02V.26WHIPPING (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) 01NOT APPLICABLE 02356

V.27PERIODICAL IMPRISONMENT 01NOT APPLICABLE 02V.28FINE AND IMPRISONMENT SUSPENDED 01NOT APPLICABLE 02V.29TREATMENT IN A REHABILITATION CENTRE(SANCA* AT EMPANGENI) 01NOT APPLICABLE 02* SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL COUNCIL ON ALCOHOLISMV.30CANCELLATION OF DRIVER'S LICENCE 01NOT APPLICABLE 02357

V.31ENDORSEMENT OF DRIVER'S LICENCE 01NOT APPLICABLE 02V.32FAILING TO ATTEND COURT (CONTEMPT OFCOURT) 01NOT APPLICABLE 02V.33 AMOUNT PAID IN RESPECT OF AN ADMISSION OF GUILT FINE.SPOT FINERIO - R99 01RI00 - R199 02R200 - R299 03R300 - R399 04R400 - R499 05R500 - R599 06R600 - R699 07R700 - R799 08R800 - R899 09358

R900 - R999 10MORE THAN Rl000 11...NOT APPLICABLE 12V.34 TERM OF IMPRISONMENT10 - 99 DAYS 01100 - 199 DAYS 02200 - 299 DAYS 03300 - 399 DAYS 04400 - 499 DAYS 05500 - 599 DAYS 06NOT APPLICABLE 07359

.~. -'-~....•-­BU 'IIII'Ord nem- ~_ die~ -. ¥tMI56·van die~19n (Wet 51 _1977].·~ om vocir de hof op die~wat" beide ~ tierondar·~YOlI_ her'eby C3Ied 14'0" n 1ermS cl sedil:A 56 cl Ihe cmMli PnxedIa'e Acl 1971~ 51 cl 1977]. to~b!b'e «he ecu1 on Ihe cbte 01 trWl,. boCh cl wtoic:h '"~~.=~~=,~:=':=:~I-oorftdng-~va..v.lc;: •Andaa~2' ....-g~r· ariIIogf---..~·:lJ> ~I!i~ i f----,,:--:-.,--:-:-:--:--=--:----,..,,----=---...I.-.,-.,---=----.====="'--,----.=""--i"01 erige andet aanIdag(1eIwat dill~tesI u.nag rtmg opgtftd~(l;j(ucp d Omcrm: de. . (WiI[)AY ~ , ~ :»E". L -' or sud1 oCher cf'age($) as !he~mar tmgaag;anst)lOUon!he ganis ....~ or a1xu11he _. -~ ~ 0E 2~L~-L_----r·-"-._-f-_--'-.... ~.--l'"tQ ..!!.a- a plac8Ipublic road n Ihe~ I~ ~; oeOdugulOU'Oe(islrik. ..edSlI gti9 ~ ~ ""0i cistrictmentioned~. JOUdil;I~-_••----_.,.. • ._.,.....,..••.-._----=--.---.__---.. ,....Ifl(l&I;:w~. m~ Aa*bg~1 >~ ! __.._..__.__ __.__._-_._-_._-_.._-----_..-._.._-_.._----_ _ _ -- __._--- _ ~: f ~2JO;,;;;.-r-··--·-·---··-··--···--·--·-·-·_··_·_·· -- --.- - - -..-- ---.--- -----.- -.- "-E' :' - ..•..- -----..-.---- --..--..-..-----..---:.-..-...: -..- --- :-..:_..~-.-.-.--.:.=-------..:----..- - -- :.- - ----.- - g~ ~ ~Cl j -I.E c.' Ff,i.~-~-;~.-fQ-~.::;::.~-.::;-..--.-----.--.--- - ..--- - - - -- --.-----.--- - - .~ ~•.•- .••••--••.-•.•-~-••••••_--...-.__.-••..•.•••-.--•..---•.--.--.-----------.--.-•...••••....----.-----.-..-.•.-----••-.-..---...•••....•...-.•.•..•••.•.•••.••••.••••. E'l ~E _ _ _ __. _. __ .._._.,._..__ __ _..__.__-..-- -- - . . . .__ ._ ~: ~~-.-- ~2-Datum waarop en p!ek Wilar u persoonlik in die hot moet verskyn / Date and place you are personally to appear in court 5"~ Vemocwclaturll l:::;G:tl.t.Y 1.~'LtO!'tTH so·o=·'-!! Plri:'l'3nVerhoor~EMCIf::::/GLaEMci6.S(lI,'L~·SCoort Hot· No.0,: _.;~ Date ot T,gr .,'"''''' Court0:

ANNEXURE DKE.NNl$G.EWINGItQ'oIClLGC ART. :141 VAN WET 51 VAN t.77VERKEERSAFOEUNG -. V.rwysinQ_noontnel" .... .-..n' To: V.n' s....narn.r.:.J • • • , • • • . . , , .V~/F--.. TRAFFIC DEPARTMENTOF RICHAROS BAY0212J2. , .. ,• . . . .• • • • • • • •"'.No.• • • • • I • • • • • I 1~1W~adcns&• • • • • • • • • . . • • • • •• • •.......• • • • • • • • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •~8ddress• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •..... ' .. ", .... ,• ••I v....-p==+°de?woZAA ~• • • o.,.tT-• • • • • •• • •P f 1 'Pos1ccIcw $tadIDarp• • • • • •• •• ••••• •• o.,.tT-Id Ck>:"':~:-F--II, I , I ,~~T:fi;~;~~T(~:j~i\~f~~.- r r r Ir", -:- ·,;".,·c';" I!~S:I---'''', ~,.,i .,i 71__ ' .•':':., .~. ,'-" ,,, •.,:,.... - .••••••.,. ·~..~·f-:~- F[!J ::~ ,--~~~~I R t , I .~:t~fi~:~f~~~j~-~:{~::~~.~-=:.i.~~:-...--,...;,..·.Mci 1IlPll'IIIi .................. ~.~......,........t.,-..e:-c...,. ..piile=.....YEAlEWAfDfiJis1:"iiluitSl'.ili· D.miE·~tr:1WRc:~:-.u1itci;A1. cmcu:..··~·-·fill. bans ROD Uh5t:L':EIi1tOlSU.- 8rctlARDS&W~- -. ..z';'·_~~_:::';."I-:~~~~~i£~~~'.D£W£IJJU.; .~- ·;..:;,:,.:::;_:~a..OG1.EltS ana gO lJlnIIt'EtXRll; _-I I , t , ,- I t I 1 , '-,~"'~~:g-~~~~"'~.,?~.~-"-~OUIWof~;~- - - >. ;~.~-=:._.-~-: '-~.7"-_. :::::;,:::~....:;~--::;::~..:..~~-.::,;..:.:_.. _I . ! t , ! ! 1 t - 1 , , t ! f , I J ! ,5'