adminSharon Hofisi Legal Letters
Many people are frankly hurt when subjected to unnecessarily strong language and unprintable obscenities on the road. It’s not easy when the road is your driver! To support those road users, a number of issues have to be considered in this instalment. Safe travel – the expectation of any road user – is a cause which must unite the kombi crew, passengers and other road users in a shared bond of good language and respect for traffic laws and regulations.
Goodness is the only investment which pays, but not on our busy and bad roads. Our society seems to be one where every road user marries his/her instinctive wish to observe laws with a sense of fear that some obscenities or outrageous comments would be aimed at them.
Ah! That is the loudest word you will mostly hear from several motorists – simply a loud exclaim! A car or vehicle is moving fast during peak hour. No space becomes acres of space for the commuter omnibuses and shuttle cars. In the vernacular, several words are heard from several angles, “haiwawozve, ibva apa iwe” (get away), “famba apa” (Move on!) and so on.
Unpalatable conversations are witnessed and drivers jump off their car seats threatening to assault the commuter crew, much to the chagrin or support of other drivers or onlookers and so forth. Everyone just wants to stroll towards his destination even through ecstatic bounds of energy. “Timu yakabaiwa”, “we are behind schedule”, go the voices. “We are the energy people on the road”, goes the feeling.
A commuter omnibus driver simultaneously fulminates or loudly revs his vehicle, springs it into action and threatens to block the way for other motorists, waves angrily, and shouts “famba mhaniwe!” “Please stay in your lane”, someone tries to argue but her concern is met with the word, “mutsikire” (block her), a chorus from the touts or other commuter drivers or conductors.
Wild talk against other road users continues unabated. No spare moment to regulatory, informative or other road signs. The passengers and other road users simply watch in disbelief as one of their own is being verbally or physically assaulted. Add huge pedestrian and vehicular congestion to this road rage!
Hooting impatiently, lightly or equably is seen as the common thing. “Kuburukirana”, a concept where unlicensed touts are allowed to drive the commuter omnibus is the order of the day. Any passenger who tries to plead with the driver is scolded.
In all this, criminalising road rage is possible because, firstly, most of the insults are punishable at law. Secondly, most of the traffic offences are also found in our statute books. Thirdly, our City Fathers have decorated most of our roads with “Stop” signs. What is required is a measure of technology to record such violations.
We all need to deal with the effects of the strong language that is used against families, in-laws, friends and crew which observe the traffic regulations. Important features of road rage laws should encourage respect for traffic regulations; empower passengers and road users to report bad driving behaviour; empower municipal police officers to arrest violent touts at city terminuses and so forth.
The law must deal with various aspects of anti-social behavioural traits that are displayed on the road. A baseline survey may be carried out as a matter of urgency and researchers should partner the City Fathers and the Traffic Safety Council of Zimbabwe, associations of commuter owners and crew and so forth.
In all this, it should be noted that road rage is largely intentional and must be regarded as worse than other traffic offences such as negligent driving, culpable homicide, inattention and so on. Till when shall we fold our hands when several lives are lost on our roads? One instant, a bloody fight is witnessed; bulging muscles are displayed; fists are exchanged; the next, a fatal, or jamming accident, and so on.
Why then criminalise road rage? It is trite that the end result of any criminal liability is the need to punish the offender, help him reform or rehabilitate him. The same happens with traffic offences which are ultimately decided by traffic courts.
The manner in which the criminal justice system deals with offenders can be understood using theories such as retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and humanitarian. I may not go into detail but we need to understand that it is just fortuitous that lives are not lost as a result of road rage.
Jurisprudentially speaking, criminal liability determines the seriousness of the offence. Liability for traffic offences usually stems from negligent acts. In 1994 and in their book, “Criminal Law: Text and Materials”, published by Sweet and Maxwell, C.M.V. Clarkson and H.M. Keating developed a thesis that there is (and ought to be) a general basic equation of criminal liability, namely: when a blameworthy actor causes a prohibited harm, criminal liability ensues.
Through monitoring media reports, we read about the disregard to the sanctity of human life when people are killed over “5 rand” or “50 cents” change. We have recently been made aware through the print media that someone was killed as punishment for “hooting”. The rage is not only done in a spur of the moment but also demonstrates how corrective actions must be immediately taken by the State and its institutions.
Using the criminal equation referred to above, there must be an endeavour to separate blame from harm. The starting point in this regard is the need to analyse blame at the exclusion of the factors involving harm. This approach produces a theory on the seriousness of the offence. For instance, where a blameworthy actor causes a greater harm the offence is regarded as more serious.
Because people are not blamed for what they are, but for what they have done, criminal blameworthiness for rage can be designed using some offences that already exist at law. Those who use rage to commit traffic offences must be blamed for their actions in killing, insulting or assaulting others on the road.
Using what are called situational offences, people are blamed on the basis that they were at fault and got themselves into a situation that later caused, or contributed to the commission of a fatal or “beneficial” offence. We witness hit and runs; bumper fights; side swipes and so forth. Terrible effects!
Observables in Zimbabwe: Travelling by public omnibus, chicken or some other bus, fits of rage are noticeable either between the bus crew and passengers or bus crew and passengers on another bus. For private road users, the passenger on the “mother’s seat” usually scolds drivers and bus conductors. Occasionally, the driver stops and in a fit of rage, nasty fights ensue.
The bus loader drags a traveller; the conductor colludes in writing a ticket for the traveller; the driver scolds the traveller for delaying him. The passenger is crying; her clothes are torn; and the rest of the passengers are silent. They are afraid of the bus crew. All in the name of rage! I cannot give you a one-of-a-kind scenario. You have witnessed what those seized with fits of road rage can do.
What needs to be done? If we look closely at what is happening on our roads, we discover that our criminal and traffic laws must be clear on those who are blamed for committing certain road actions. In fact, most of our conversations on the road have been punctuated by verbal or physical insults; intentional side swipes; or sometimes deafening silence from the passengers.
My last point: Bus crews in their diversity (drivers, conductors, loaders; associations of public transport; Traffic Safety Council of Zimbabwe; the Zimbabwe Republic Police and passengers) must take road rage seriously. Let us start now.
Sharon Hofisi is a lecturer in Law and Public Administration. [email protected]
Online Reporter