Car Insurance Law

Does Car Insurance cover engine fire?

Written on December 27th, 2010 by jonckie@arrivealive.co.za
Categories: Car Accidents, Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Law, Car Repairs, Car Statistics, Road Safety, Safe Driving Tips

Engine fire on the N1 outside Bellville

Yesterday, the day after Christmas, I travelled from Cape Town to Oudtshoorn and saw in the distance thick white smoke with traffic coming to a near standstill. On approaching the cause of the congested traffic my heart went out to a gentleman standing next to a vehicle that suffered severe damage from engine fire!

I could not help but reflect on how different this Christmas time turned out for him and how he might recover from this loss… Would he be able to repair the vehicle or claim damages from some car insurance product or someone?

What is causing the fire?

This is unfortunately something that occurs at roadside far more frequent than is necessary – in most cases vehicle fire is indeed preventable!

Most car fires aren’t caused by accidents, but by poor car maintenance. According to the National Fire Protection Association, collisions or turnovers caused only three percent of vehicle fires. Leaks, breaks in parts, electrical or mechanical failure and even worn-out parts are the more common causes of car fires.

On the Arrive Alive website we find information on how to prevent vehicle fire in a section titled Escape and Safety from Vehicle fire

What does the policy terms and conditions stipulate?

To answer the question of whether car insurance will cover vehicle fire, it is best to refer to some of the wording to be found in car insurance policies. The most common car insurance policies are comprehensive car insurance and policies for third party, fire and theft. We would like to refer to some of these descriptions:

“Comprehensive covers your vehicle for losses other than collision. This can include covering for your car if it is stolen, damaged by flood, fire or animals among other things. Without this coverage and with only liability on your vehicle, unfortunately a fire of unknown origin would not be covered.
“Your insurance policy covers unplanned, catastrophic events, not mechanical failure. Now if a mechanical failure ends up causing another event like a fire, then that is covered, but only the fire damage.”
“Every car insurance policy has a list of events that are covered. Collision covers exactly that: collisions with other vehicles. Comprehensive covers factors such as vandalism, flooding, hurricanes, theft and fire. The cause of the engine failure must be a covered event. For instance, if collision or vandalism caused the failure, then it would be covered by your insurance. However, if the failure were caused by low oil levels, then it would not be covered.”
If the mechanical damage is not as a result of an insured event (peril) that is covered under your Comprehensive Short Term Insurance Policy, you cannot claim for the mechanical damages. If however, you were involved in an accident that caused mechanical damage, your comprehensive policy will cover these damages.

What does the Ombudsman say about damage by mechanical failure?

“ ‘Comprehensive’ does not really mean what it says, but a Comprehensive Motor Policy is intended to indemnify the Insured against most of the ordinary ways in which his vehicle can be lost or damaged, and also against the claims of third parties for loss of or damage to their vehicles, or as a result of personal injury or death not covered by Road Accident Fund, or loss of or damage to other people’s property as a result of a motor accident.

Thus, with the usual Comprehensive Policy you will be covered against loss of the vehicle or damage to it, which happens as a result of an accident, and you will also be covered if the vehicle is stolen or hijacked, or if anybody makes a claim against you for damage to their property as a result of a motor accident in which you vehicle is involved.

“Third Party, Fire and Theft insurance”

This is a less expensive Policy which indemnifies you only if your vehicle is damaged or destroyed by fire or theft ( NOT as a result of a motor accident ), or if some third party alleges a claim against you as a result of your negligent driving of the vehicle.”

From the above it becomes clear that the answer to the question is to be found with reference to the cause of the fire. The engine is regarded as a mechanical item that fails most likely due to poor maintenance or lack of oil from an unrepaired leak or even from over-revving. If these are the causes of the engine fire – normal car insurance will not cover you!

Are there alternatives to finding protection for vehicle fire and mechanical failure?

It is important to differentiate between an insurance policy and a warranty. A warranty protects the vehicle owner from mechanical failure – a car insurance policy does not – but rather protects from damage suffered as a result of accidents, theft and hijacking!

Normal car insurance, even comprehensive car insurance does not cover mechanical or electrical breakdown. Once your car’s warranty has expired and you wish to protect yourself from vehicle failure – you will need to consider your options.

You could

decide to do nothing,
extend your vehicle warranty or
take out mechanical breakdown insurance.

There are many insurers offering Mechanical Breakdown Insurance

The cover and benefits will vary depending on the type of policy you take out and can include any, or all, of the following: engine, electrical system, gearbox, differential, drive shafts, steering, fuel system, air-conditioner, electronic ignition and braking and cooling systems.

We would like to alert vehicle owners to also closely scrutinize the terms and conditions of mechanical breakdown insurance. A number of exclusions could apply. The owner is usually responsible for fair wear and tear and will also pay for any maintenance items such as seals, wheel bearings, clutch plate, pressure plate and release bearing.

Advice to Vehicle Owners

It is best to rather prevent and avoid engine fire and vehicle failure through proper vehicle maintenance. Failure to do so will increase not only the risk of losing your vehicle – but also risk the lives of passengers, other road users and even threaten environmental safety!

Share and Enjoy:

Tags: car insurance and engine fire, car insurance and mechanical failure, engine fire, Mechanical Breakdown Insurance, vehicle failure
Posted in Car Accidents, Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Law, Car Repairs, Car Statistics, Road Safety, Safe Driving Tips | No Comments »

Will my car insurance pay if the accident is not reported to the police within 24 hours?

Written on December 22nd, 2010 by jonckie@arrivealive.co.za
Categories: Car Accidents, Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Law, Did you know?, Ombudsman

reporting accident Decisions made by the Ombudsman reveal that car insurance companies will not easily evade their obligation to make payment in the event of late reporting of an accident. Even though there might be other legal implications for late notification, the Ombudsman will apply his mind to the insurance contract with a much broader view on fair interpretation.

What is the Test to be used?

The test is one of fairness and equity.
The ombudsman will ask whether the insurer has suffered any prejudice by virtue of the later reporting.
The insurer would have suffered prejudice if the late reporting increased the insurer’s liability.

Examples of car insurance claims where there were late reporting of accidents

We would like to discuss how this test has been applied by referring to a few examples of cases before the Ombudsman.

Example 1: Failure to report accident to police within 24 hours

It was not a happy Friday 13th for the insured, a chef at a hotel in Saxonwold. At 20:00 he was on his way home along Jan Smuts Avenue, Johannesburg, and on one of the many turns he noticed a group of pedestrians crossing the road. While avoiding them, he overcorrected and collided with a light pole. He lost consciousness and woke up the following day in the Milpark Hospital.

He was discharged on Saturday at 15:30 and his wife took him home, gave him medication and put him to bed. He spent the whole of the Sunday in bed, and although still shaky and in a lot of pain, reported the accident to the Randburg Police Station on Monday. He lodged a claim for the repairs of his car with the insurer, which rejected the claim on the ground that he had failed to report the collision to the SA Police within 24 hours.

The insurer alleged that it was not given the opportunity to verify and confirm the incident with the Police and there was also no blood test conducted to confirm the possible use of alcohol.

As a result of the Ombudsman’s intervention, the insurer admitted the claim and paid out to the insured R44 095,17, being the pre-accident value of his vehicle.

[Source: Ombudsman Newsletter : 04/03]

Example 2: Failure to report accident to police within 24 hours

Whilst the Insured was travelling from Hazyview at 20h30, a duiker ran in front of the vehicle and she hit it with the right hand side of her vehicle. She then swerved to the left and hit the curb and sustained so much damage that the vehicle had to be towed from the scene. In view of the fact that no other vehicles were involved, the Insured did not consider it necessary to report it to the Police. When she reported the claim to the Insurer, she was advised that she had to report the accident to the Police within 24 hours after the accident. She ultimately reported the accident to the Police seven days after the accident.

The Insurer rejected liability on one ground alone, i.e. that the Insured had failed to report the accident to the Police within twenty-four hours after the accident.

Ombudsman’s response

The Ombudsman pointed out to the Insurer that there were no other parties involved and that the Insured did not consider it necessary to report the accident to the police. Furthermore, she may have been misled by the employee of the Insurer that she had seven days to make the report.

In any event, the only possible prejudice the Insurer may have suffered by the Insured’s failure to report the accident, is that the Insurer may not know whether the Insured was under the influence of alcohol. If there were any suspicions, it would be straightforward exercise to contact the towing company and establish the facts from them, as they arrived on the scene shortly after the accident. In addition, the Motor Assessor would also be in a position to confirm whether the Insured had hit a buck. The Insurer was then persuaded to admit the claim.

Example 3: Failure to report accident to the SAPS within specified period

On 14th March 2004 and at approximately 23h00 the Insured was travelling home when he swerved in an attempt to avoid a stray dog and collided with a tree. In view of the fact that his vehicle was not badly damaged and no-one else was involved in the accident, he proceeded home and did not bother reporting the matter to the Police. The Insurer rejected liability on the ground that the Insured had failed to report the accident to the Police within 24 hours.

Ombudsman’s response

The Insured believed that in view of the circumstances of the accident, that there was no obligation to report to the SAPS. The Insured was not in possession of the Policy wording. In the circumstances the Insurer agreed to accept the claim.

Example 4: Notification of claim to police within limited time period

A lecturer at a university dropped his son at school and upon returning home he activated his remote control device to pull in his garage rolling gate. In driving into his garage his daughter aged five ran towards the car and to create more space for her, he swerved more to his left hand side. Unfortunately, he scraped his car on the left hand side. He lodged a claim with his Insurer and it rejected the claim based on the fact that he had not complied with a policy condition, i.e. to notify the police of the event within twenty-four hours.

Ombudsman’s response

Although the insured is technically in breach of the policy condition, The Ombudsman will make a ruling based on the overall effect of the breach. In this case the SAPS will merely issue a reference number, but will not carry out any investigations and consequently the Insurer is in no better position. Such a ruling will obviously be made in the interests of equity.

Advice to policyholders

We would like to advise that all vehicle owners stay on the safe side of the law and that all accidents be reported within 24 hours. It is best to report swiftly, not only for car insurance purposes, but also to ensure that details are placed on record while they are still well remembered and easy to confirm!

Also view:

Reporting and accident and Car Insurance

Share and Enjoy:

Tags: late reporting of an accident, reporting accident within 24hours, Reporting and accident and Car Insurance
Posted in Car Accidents, Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Law, Did you know?, Ombudsman | 1 Comment »

Car insurance might not cover accidents with smooth tyres on your car!

Written on December 21st, 2010 by jonckie@arrivealive.co.za
Categories: Car Accidents, Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Law, Ombudsman, Road Safety, Safe Driving Tips

wheel_change You can bet on it that your car insurance company will investigate whether the smooth tyres on your car caused the accident that lead to your insurance claim. This will most likely be the case where there appears to be no other contributing factors to the accident and you merely slid off the road at a corner or turn on the road.

Why can they do this?

Most car insurance policies will stipulate that cover is provided only with the understanding and warranty by the vehicle owner that the vehicle is to be maintained and operated in a roadworthy condition.

This does however not allow the car insurer to dismiss every single claim just because the tyres might be a bit on the smooth side. There needs to be a causal link between the breach of warranty by the vehicle owner and the insured’s loss.

This can be illustrated with 3 examples of actual decisions by the Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance

Examples of Smooth Tyres / Roadworthiness and car insurance claims

Example 1

The Insured entered a traffic light controlled four-way intersection at a speed of 50 to 60 Kms. per hour. The green light was in his favour and just before he entered the intersection, an Isuzu white Bakkie entering the intersection from the opposite direction executed a turn to the lsuzu’s right, i.e. across the direction of travel of the Insured.

The Insured applied brakes slightly and noticed that the light was still green for him. To his surprise a Mazda 323 followed the manoeuvre of the Isuzu Bakkie and a collision occurred. The Insured’s Toyota collided with the Mazda’s left rear door.

The Insurer rejected liability on the ground that the two front tyres were smooth and that liability is excluded as a result of “damage to the vehicle caused by or attributable to an unroadworthy condition of the vehicle”.

Ombudsman’s response

The Ombudsman pointed out that having regard to the circumstances of the collision, the smooth tyres had no causal connection to the collision and the subsequent damage to the complainant’s vehicle. The Insurer was persuaded to meet the claim.

[Source: Ombudsman Newsletter : 03/04]

Example 2 Unroadworthy vehicle – tyre tread not meeting requirements

The insured was travelling on the R21, which is a dual carriageway in each direction with a grass lane separating the two directions of travel. Because it was already after 20:00, the traffic was quiet. He was travelling at an approximate speed of 110km per hour because he wished to remain in sight of his wife who was following him. The road surface was dry and visibility good. He suddenly became aware of dust/smoke, and in order to escape the total blockage of his front view, he swerved to his right-hand side. He clipped the right rear corner of a truck in front of him which resulted in his bonnet flying open. This totally blocked his view. All this happened so quickly that he did not have time to brake.

Immediately after the aforesaid collision, the airbag inflated and all he could do was to take his foot off the accelerator and the car ultimately overturned.

Significantly, the car travelling immediately behind the insured was also caught in the emission of dust/smoke and he too swerved to his right-hand side, but collided with the insured’s wife’s vehicle. (His wife had in the meantime pulled over to the right hand lane in order to overtake the vehicle behind the insured). The insurer rejected liability because the left front tyre did not have sufficient tread on it.

Ombudsman’s response

The Ombudsman pointed out that at a speed of approximately 110km per hour the insured was covering approximately 31 metres per second. Generally, the Courts accept that the driver has a one second reaction time, and based on the facts as related by the insured, a full tread on the left front tyre would not have avoided the collision. The insurer was persuaded to admit the claim.

[Source: Ombudsman Newsletter : 04/04]

Example 3 Rear tyres did not have a proper tread situation

The insured was travelling from Cavendish Square in Claremont, Cape Town, to his home in Fish Hoek, along the M3 freeway.

Just before the Tokai turnoff, a drunken pedestrian was illegally on the freeway and stumbled and ran into the road just missing a 4 x 4 Toyota. The insured swerved, braked heavily to try and avoid the pedestrian, but he ultimately collided with the pedestrian who survived the collision.

The insurer rejected liability because both rear tyres had tread below the legal limit, and it was a condition of the policy that a vehicle had to be in roadworthy condition. The insured did not accept the aforesaid allegation, and the insurer then requested the AA to supply it with a report, which confirmed that both rear tyres were found to be unroadworthy.

Ombudsman’s response

The policy issued to the insured contained a specific condition that the vehicle be kept in a road worthy condition at all times in terms of the Road Traffic Ordinance. The tyre tread depth did not meet the requirements. The insurer’s decision was not based entirely on the policy condition, but also on the fact that the collision may have been avoided and the damages lessened had the vehicle tyres been in a good condition. Based on the facts, the Ombudsman concluded that the insurer was entitled to maintain the rejection.

[Source: Ombudsman Annual Report 2003]

Conclusion and Advice

From these examples it is clear that the car insurance claim could be dismissed if there is a causal link between the non -roadworthiness of the tyres, the accident and the resulting damage from an accident.

We would like to urge all vehicle owners to pay close attention to tyre safety – not to have car insurance claims paid – but rather to avoid accidents, loss of life and injury!!

Also view:

Tyres and Road Safety

Tyres and Car Insurance

What is the causal link required before a car insurer can reject your claim?

Share and Enjoy:

Tags: Ombud and tyres, smooth tyres and insurance claims, tyres and car insurance, tyres and road safety
Posted in Car Accidents, Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Law, Ombudsman, Road Safety, Safe Driving Tips | 3 Comments »

What is the causal link required before a car insurer can reject your claim?

Written on December 20th, 2010 by jonckie@arrivealive.co.za
Categories: Car Accidents, Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Law, Insurance Articles, Ombudsman

understanding_t&c

Introduction

Car Insurance is not supposed to be the field of battle for fights between policyholders and big insurance companies. It is rather an agreement reached through mutual understanding whereby an insurance company agrees to provide cover for specified risks in return for the payment of monthly/ yearly car insurance premiums.

Both parties agree to clearly specified clauses and warranties in the car insurance policy and both undertake to abide by these clauses. If a party to the contract does not abide by these clauses – he is in breach of contract and the Law or Ombud has to ensure that justice and fairness prevail.

Exclusions/ Breach of Warranty and having your claim rejected

Most often the rejection or dismissal of a car insurance claim will be motivated and identified by the car insurer as a serious breach of contract – and usually manifests itself in conduct from the insured clients that amounts to an aspect excluded by the policy or a breach of a warranty provided!

We would like to refer briefly to a few examples:

Car insurance cover will be excluded if:

- The driver of the vehicle is not a licensed driver

- The driver of the vehicle is found to be intoxicated

- The vehicle is stolen and did not have the specified alarm system or tracking device

- The vehicle damaged in an accident is found to be non-roadworthy etc.

The insured client basically provides a “Warranty” that the vehicle will be operated and kept under certain circumstances.

But are these Breach of Warranty exclusions in car insurance policies fair?

This very important question will lead us closer to the importance of establishing a causal link. To answer this question we would have to reflect on the basics of car insurance and the obligations of both parties to make a complete and truthful disclosure of all aspects pertaining to the policy.

It is recognized that there are some facts which only falls within the field of knowledge of the vehicle owner. These are the very important facts on the disclosure of which the insurance company is able to calculate risk and decide on a premium.

Aspects to be disclosed by the vehicle owner/ client will include detail with regards to the driver, the vehicle, security features, where the vehicle will be driven etc. It is only fair to expect that a quote can only be provided and an agreement reached if such disclosure of facts is done with complete honesty.

If the vehicle owner discloses and provides a warranty that the vehicle will be parked in a closed garage at night in a gated community in Bloemfontein and will be fitted with an alarm system, the car insurance company cannot be forced to make payment if it later appears that the vehicle was stolen after it was regularly left overnight without an alarm system outside a pub in Hillbrow.

The requirement of a causal link

It can be expected that every insurance company will pay close attention to all accident claims. It makes business sense not to make payments where the client has acted outside of the scope of the agreement and where such conduct or breach of warranty excludes their duty to make payment.

It would however not be fair if the insurer is allowed to search and use the finest “potential deviation” that could possibly help them to avoid making payment…

The principles of fairness should apply – and this is where we meet the requirement of causation!

What is causation or a causal link?

The simplest explanation would be that there is causation where the specific conduct “causes” or brings about a specific result. In our criminal law we use the “conditio sine qua non test” – or “the condition without which not “. We may ask – would the result still have occurred had it not been for the specific condition or conduct?

This is however not as simple as it might seem. There is sometimes a new intervening event between the initial conduct and the end result. A good example would be where you cause an accident and the occupant of the other vehicle is not badly injured. He is taken to hospital in an ambulance but the ambulance overturns on the way to the hospital and the injured person dies in this accident. It would not be fair to charge you with causing the death of the person even though without your initial conduct the person would not have been transported via the ambulance, would not have been in an accident and would still have been alive!

When we refer to the requirement of a causal link between the insured’s breach of a term in the insurance contract and the insured’s loss we apply the same questions and use the same test.

In the latest newsletter from the Ombud we find a very detailed discussion by Prof JP van Niekerk on this topic and he uses an excellent example from the Roman Dutch Law to explain why the principles of fairness should still apply:

Short Term Insurance Example

“Suppose… that in the case of insurance on a ship destined for some Mediterranean port it was agreed that she had to be armed with ten guns of war so that there would be protection against attacks and possible capture by the enemy or by pirates; and suppose further that this term of the contract was not complied with by the insured but that only six guns were placed on board.

If the ship was then captured by Turkish pirates, the insurer would clearly not be liable (there in such a case being the required causal link between the breach and the loss).

But if the ship, without encountering any enemy or pirate vessels, was lost in a storm (something which would in any case have occurred even if there had been no breach of the contract and, actually, something which would have been even more likely in that case, because of the fact that had there been no breach she would have carried a heavier load of guns and would have been more prone to getting caught in a storm) the insurer would certainly have been liable for that loss.

Therefore…even if there was a breach of an undertaking by the insured at the time of the loss, the insurer could only avoid liability for that loss if it was causally linked to that breach.”

Application to Car Insurance

What do we say when we require the existence of a causal link between the insured’s breach of a term in the car insurance contract and the insured’s loss?

This can best be described with the following example:

-If the insured vehicle is driven by a driver and the tyres are smooth, making the vehicle non-roadworthy, and the driver then veers off at a turn on a wet road and causes an accident – the car insurance claim can be rejected if the car insurer can prove that there is a causal link between the smooth tyres, the driver losing control around the turn in the road and the resulting vehicle damage.

- If the driver is driving the exact same car and some speeding motorist smashes into the back of the vehicle – the car insurer cannot then on finding out that the tyres were smooth, dismiss the car insurance claim as there was no causal link between the smooth tyres, the accident and the vehicle damage!

What is the test to be used?

“The warranties provided are to be interpreted reasonably and equitably and for that reason, even if the clause itself does not so provide, an independent and substantial causal link between their breach and the loss should be required before the insurer would be entitled to rely on such breach. Thus, where the insured can prove that his non-compliance with the clause was not the cause or a (contributory) cause of the loss, the insurer would not be able to escape liability.”[ Prof JP van Niekerk]

Conclusion

We will strive to continue with our discussion on these and other aspects of car insurance that could help vehicle owners in gaining greater clarity of their obligations in terms of their car insurance policies.

The better we understand car insurance – the greater the chances of finding the best car insurance to meet our needs!!

Share and Enjoy:

Tags: breach of warranty and car insurance, causal link in car insurance, disclosure and car insurance, Ombudsman and car insurance, Ombudsman and car insurance claims
Posted in Car Accidents, Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Law, Insurance Articles, Ombudsman | 2 Comments »

Rights of the motorist with regards to roadblocks and arrest

Written on December 17th, 2010 by jonckie@arrivealive.co.za
Categories: Car Insurance Law, Did you know?, Road Safety, Safe Driving Tips, Uncategorized

Motorists Rights & Responsibilities in Roadblocks plus the status of AARTO and the points-demerit system

Following repeated requests for clarification arising from the receipt of emails with or without attachments containing various pieces of extremely alarmist and factually inaccurate information, Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) wishes to set the record straight so that members of the public are fully appraised of what the situations surrounding the abovementioned topics are.

JPSA also warns that the PDF document entitled “Metrocops arrest rights” purporting to be from The Southern African Vehicle Renting and Leasing Association, “SAVRALA” wherein a number of incorrect statements are made with respect to how motorists should react when presented with a situation where Metro or other Traffic Police or law enforcement officials wish to arrest them may cause a worsened situation to anyone who takes heed of its contents.

This document is not a “one or two pager” with scant and/or inaccurate information. Instead it contains comprehensive information that you absolutely must know, so please be sure to read the entire contents of this advisory. Please also forward it to everyone you know so that the nonsensical emails that are doing the rounds can be counteracted upon with true and factual information.

The implementation of AARTO and the points-demerit system

The Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act was enacted in parliament in 1998 and was proclaimed to be in force, excluding the points-demerit system from July 2008 in the Pretoria (Tshwane Metropolitan Police) and November 2008 in the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police areas.

As of December 2010, AARTO is not in force in any other area or jurisdiction in South Africa and it is planned to be rolled out to other jurisdictions during the 2011 calendar year.

Only once it has been rolled out throughout the entire country will the points-demerit system be proclaimed in the Government Gazette as is required by South African law.

All other implementations throughout South Africa will similarly have to be proclaimed in the Government Gazette as and when they are to take effect.

There is therefore, absolutely no truth in the nonsensical emails that are doing the rounds at present, as they have for a significant amount of time, stating that the points-demerit system is in force “as of midnight last night” etc. despite the fact that they have (probably fraudulently) made use of law firms’ letterheads and other institutions’ names.

AARTO fines range from R100 to R250 mainly for pedestrians and non-motorised vehicles, and R250 to R1500 for motorised vehicles. AARTO offences, i.e. serious road traffic offences like reckless or negligent driving, drink-driving, culpable homicide, etc. are still dealt with by the Criminal Procedure Act and involve criminal charges and consequences for offenders.

With respect to outstanding AARTO fines (infringement notices), please be sure to read the sections that deal with withholding of licence discs and arrest in roadblocks so that you fully understand your rights under AARTO. The “10km/h grace” is and will remain in force with respect to speeding offences since this tolerance is required by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) as well as the TCSP guidelines because there is no requirement for all speedometers to be calibrated to strict standards.

Motorists are however advised to drive at or preferably below the speed limit at all times, according to their speedometers and to be acutely aware of all of the speed limit signs that are placed on public roads, freeways etc. By far, the majority of traffic prosecution in South Africa is for speed-related infringements, and it is nonsensical to think that you will not get caught for speeding.

JPSA has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that driving at 10km/h below the speed limit at all times prevents any speeding fines coming its way and encourages members of the public to do the same.

Traffic fines and your address details on eNatIS

Be sensible. Having outstanding traffic fines upon which you have taken no action is both irresponsible and bordering on criminal behaviour. As much as no-one likes receiving traffic fines, it is nonsensical to ignore them and expect that they will miraculously evaporate. Every responsible citizen should therefore act responsibly and lawfully by dealing with their traffic fines as soon as they receive/become aware of them.

In most instances where people claim to have never received their traffic fines, this is due to them having changed address without notifying the relevant registering/licencing authority. We hasten to add that this is not always the reason for non-receipt of fines, but from our observation it is the most common cause.

You are reminded that under the National Road Traffic Act and Regulations, you are obliged to update your address details in the prescribed manner within 21 days of changing address and not doing so is an offence for which you can be fined. Filling in the “change of address notification” on your licence renewal notification is neither the prescribed manner nor any guarantee that your address details will be updated and you should always make sure that you acquire and complete the correct documentation for this at your licencing authority and then make sure that the changes are made.

If you are in any way unsure whether your address details are correct or not, then go and enquire at your local licencing authority since it is your responsibility; not that of the traffic authorities to ensure that your address details are in fact correct.

Consequences of ignoring traffic fines

AARTO infringement notices

Under AARTO, the consequences of ignoring your traffic fines have a severe financial impact on you and strict timelines are prescribed in the Act and Regulations for processes and their associated penalties to be played out. At the very most, this process takes 6 months from the date of infringement to closure with severe consequences in-between.

At least, that is how the process is supposed to work in accordance with this legislation and just because the current participants have not followed these processes in accordance with the Act and Regulations to date does not mean that they will not in future.

Note that all AARTO 03 infringement notices (camera fines) must be served via registered mail, no exceptions. However, if this condition is met and you fail to collect the document within 10 days of posting, it is deemed by law to have been served so don’t think you can get away with not signing for it.
Licence discs and driving licence renewals may be withheld if any one infringement notice in your name has progressed to an enforcement order. Prior to the existence of an enforcement order, this practice is unlawful.
The most poignant facts with respect to AARTO fines are that a summons or warrant of arrest with respect to an infringement notice (fine) may NEVER be issued under any circumstances.

Fines issued under the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA)

“Traditional or old style” traffic fines which are currently issued in the areas outside of the two traffic authorities currently operating under AARTO are dealt with by the CPA. This is the current method used throughout South Africa outside of the JMPD and TMPD’s jurisdiction and will remain so until such time as AARTO is proclaimed in those jurisdictions.

The consequences of not attending to these fines can be significantly more traumatic to motorists who think that they can simply ignore them in that the ultimate result could be the issue of a warrant of arrest against the vehicle owner concerned.

Although traffic authorities regularly and with impunity abuse the provisions of the CPA with respect to service of criminal summonses, there is blame on both sides that needs to be apportioned. One needs to remember that a summons with respect to a camera fine would never be generated in the first place unless the registered owner of the vehicle ignored a notice issued under Section 341 of the CPA when it was generated.

Whilst it is certainly true that the CPA’s lack of requirement for notices to be served in any way other than standard (non-registered) post has often lead to the lack of delivery of these notices, it is equally true that many people, including attorneys and other people who should know better regularly ignore these and say “I will wait for the summons”.

This is an extremely hazardous practice since it is this process that is often abused by traffic authorities and process servers who incorrectly and unlawfully serve these summonses by not delivering them in person and then lying on service returns to the courts.

It must be remembered that the only requirements to become a process server are that one is mobile and semiliterate in being able to read where to deliver such summonses that are to be served. Coupled with this is a preparedness to accept a pittance of a payment from the authorities to enact such service and when we refer to “a pittance” we mean just that. Only a high volume of summonses to be served could cover the fuel required to do so, let alone see the server earning anything to speak of.

It has even become increasingly apparent that summonses issued under Section 54 of the CPA have been posted instead of personally served and despite this being completely unlawful, it does not help the person who has been affected in this manner when they miss their court date.

Magistrates who see their and the courts’ time being wasted by people who fail to appear on the stipulated court date on these summonses do not delve deeply into how or if the summonses were served, they presume that process servers have been honest on their returns and simply apply a contempt of court charge and issue a warrant of arrest for the offender who has failed to appear before them.

Execution of warrants of arrest

Once a warrant of arrest has been served the person in whose name that warrant has been issued, they become fair game for anyone who has the authority to arrest them. Whilst some warrants of arrest are sometimes executed by police who actually go to the home or work address of the offender to arrest them, which is how a warrant should be executed in the first place; more often than not, these warrants go unexecuted for significant periods of time and end up getting executed at roadblocks set up by traffic authorities, where these warrants relate to traffic fines.

Remember that a warrant of arrest under the CPA is a very serious document and is used for a wide variety of criminal offences including rape, murder, robbery… and traffic fines. A policeman executing a warrant of arrest does not care for what crime the warrant was issued; he/she merely cares about the fact that it is a criminal that is to be arrested.

Traffic authorities who set up roadblocks in their jurisdiction either have live feeds or copies from their databases at these roadblocks and warrants are often executed there and then. Knowing your rights can be of enormous benefit to you and being misinformed about them could land you in a lot of very hot water, the consequences of which could have devastating effects.

Please take heed of the following:

A warrant of arrest against you is an authority to arrest you on a criminal charge; it is not an authority to abuse you and/or your rights under the constitution.
You have the right to demand to see a copy of the warrant of arrest be shown to you and they must show it to you immediately however take note of the following:

o This does not have to be an original.
o You may not be detained whilst they go and fetch one.
o If you are detained whilst they go to fetch one, this constitutes unlawful arrest but do not jump to
any conclusions just yet.
o Refusing or resisting arrest at any time, whether there is a warrant of arrest out on you or not is one
of the dumbest things anyone can do since peace officers (traffic officers) and police are allowed to
use force to effect an arrest if the arrestee does not cooperate. In short, never resist arrest!

You have no right to demand or be shown proof of service of a summons at a roadblock, so don’t even go there.
o This does not mean that you have no right to access this information at a later stage, so just bear this in mind.
If you are arrested on the strength of a warrant of arrest, you must be taken to the place of holding stated on the warrant of arrest as soon as possible after your arrest.
o The term “as soon as possible” is extremely ambiguous and does not mean within a certain timeframe.
o “As soon as possible” in your eyes may be within 10 minutes of being arrested whilst in the eyes of the traffic authority it may be within an hour of them finishing their three-hour roadblock.
o It would be for a court to decide if the timeframe was reasonable or not, not you.
o If you are taken to any place other than that stipulated on the warrant, this would be a violation in terms of the warrant, but this is a matter that can be taken up at a later stage. Trying to do so at the time would be little short of stupid since you would already be at a disadvantage due to your circumstances.
You must be informed of your rights under the constitution at the time of your arrest.
o If you are not, do not make a big song and dance of it at the time, simply note it and in particular, whom it was who failed to do this.
o When you are detained at a police station, one of the documents you will be issued and made to sign will be a notification of your rights under the constitution. Read this document carefully and bear its contents in mind. Do not refuse to sign it.
o This document covers the SAPS when they detain you but does not cover the person who arrested you if they did not inform you of your rights at the time of your arrest.
o If you are refused anything that appears on this document during your detention, take note of it and whom it was who refused you these rights, but do not try and take it up there and then as this will lead to dispute under which you will once again find yourself at a severe disadvantage.
At any time, whether you are being issued a fine or being arrested, you have the right to ask to see the appointment certificate (card) of the peace officer who is fining or arresting you.
o Remember that there is no legal requirement for a law enforcement officer to be wearing a name badge. This is an operational requirement of the traffic authority but is not a legislated requirement. Don’t get into an argument about this; merely politely ask to see their appointment certificate.
o Once you ask or demand to see this, the deed is done and if they refuse to show it to you, they have committed an offence.
o The offence that they have committed has, in terms of the CPA the effect of making everything that they do unlawful, including issuing you with a fine or summons or arresting you.
o Once again, do not try and take this up at the time, merely note it and whom it was who refused to show it to you. Remember that there will always be a way to find out whom it was that refused to show you this.
Once you have been detained, you will have the option to pay an admission of guilt fine or appear before a court. The choice is yours.

Beware of emails and other notifications that say “a new law” etc. and particularly be advised that there is no law in South Africa or anywhere else that states that a female cannot be arrested after certain hours. Anyone, of any sex etc. can be arrested at any time, so long as the arrest is lawful.

Dealing traffic fines correctly

It must always be remembered that South Africa has a Constitution and Bill of Rights which states that “every person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty”. Just remember that refusing to sign for a summons or AARTO infringement notice is an offence and it is really silly to engage in this practice.

Traffic authorities, courts members of the public and some legislation regularly forgets that that this is in fact the case and presumes that when a person has been issued a traffic fine, they are to be assumed to be guilty. Nothing could be further from the truth and simply accepting this widely held belief is tantamount to discarding the constitution in its entirety!

Traffic authorities who hand their “stagnated fines” over to debt collectors, who in turn engage in extortion tactics to try to scare people into paying them are acting in a grossly unethical manner because a traffic fine is not a debt, but an accusation of wrongdoing which has not been proven in court. Both the Criminal Procedure Act and the AARTO Act have processes to be followed and handing fines over to debt collectors is certainly not one of them.

This has not stopped municipalities or debt collectors however and in particular, “VVM Incorporated” has chosen to defame JPSA after they were exposed on Carte Blanche by making accusations of us “encouraging lawlessness”. As at the time of writing of this advisory, VVM continues to defame JPSA, its chairman and every motorist and debtor in this country on their website with their so-called “response to the Carte Blanche JMPD debt story”.

Traffic fines under AARTO

The AARTO Act is particularly guilty of discarding the Constitution in that its very nature presumes guilt of the infringer and lays the burden of proving one’s innocence firmly in your lap. According to a published article on this topic, Alta Swanepoel, one of the constructors of this legislation, has openly and publicly stated that “it is easier for the infringer to prove their innocence than for the State to prove their guilt” and whilst this statement may be true, it only confirms the fact that the Constitution has, without doubt been violated.

The AARTO Act also migrates traffic fines from criminal offences to civil proceedings and once a warrant of execution has been issued, these fines are in fact viewed as a debt. The prescription period for debts to the State is currently 30 years, so your traffic fines will never really disappear. The sheriff will be able to seize your moveable assets to service your fines, however debt collectors will not be allowed to edge in on the action, so VVM and its peers will have to find some other way to intimidate people.

This having been said, the AARTO Act remains in force and is going to be rolled out throughout South Africa unless a court action stops it, and that is highly unlikely given the mass apathy of South Africans and clever leverage of spindoctors who have positioned AARTO as an Act that will save lives on our roads.

The options open to an alleged infringer under AARTO are to:

Pay the fine immediately, taking the 50% discount and incur the associated demerit-points on one’s driving licence immediately (once the points-demerit system comes into play).
Apply to pay in instalments forfeiting the 50% discount and incur the associated demerit-points on one’s driving licence immediately (once the points-demerit system comes into play).
Make representation, (or try to prove one’s innocence) on an AARTO 08 form.
Elect to be tried in court, (or try to prove one’s innocence) on an AARTO 10 form.

In all cases, it will be noted that the alleged infringer is presumed to be guilty on all of these forms in their wording. This does not however mean that you can ignore your infringement notices and hope that they will miraculously vanish, because they will not. You must exercise one of these options if you wish to avoid the other steps and disadvantages of the AARTO Act.

Traffic fines under the CPA

On receiving a Section 341 notice under the CPA, you may:

Admit guilt and pay the fine immediately.
Make representation in the form of a letter to the relevant traffic authority prior to the fine payment expiry date.
Wait for a Section 54 summons to be issued and served on you.

We have already discussed the disadvantages of the latter so we will not rehash this.

On receiving a Section 56 (issued by a traffic officer at the time of the alleged offence) or a Section 54 (issued with respect to camera and other offences where you are not served at the time) summons, you have the following options available to you:

Admit guilt and pay the fine immediately.
Make representation to the public prosecutor.
Appear in court and defend the matter.
Ignore the summons, fail to appear in court and get arrested on a warrant of arrest.

Once again, we have already addressed the latter so we will not rehash it. Although the NPA has in instruction notices to traffic authorities tried to limit the period within which a traffic fine may be migrated to a summons and action taken on it, this remains an open-ended an unenforced prescription period.

Just bear in mind that it is your responsibility to deal with your traffic fines in a responsible manner. If you fail to act responsibly, whether for an AARTO or CPA fine, the consequences that result will affect you and no one else. Griping about being subjected to the consequences of ignoring fines is really a very childish attitude to adopt.

Paying traffic fines

When you wish to pay a traffic fine, there are usually several means by which to affect payment. Just remember always that doing so is an admission of guilt and in the case of AARTO can have other consequences.

The means available usually involve one or more of the following:

Direct payment at the traffic authority concerned.
Payment at a post office or other collection point.
Payment via EFT or electronic banking.
Payment via a traffic fine collection website like payfine, payCity, viewfines, nutraffic, etc.

o Just remember that is nonsensical to pay a camera fine if there is no photograph to back it up!

When stopped in a roadblock, traffic authorities regularly try to create the impression that you have no option but to settle your fines there and then under threat of arrest. The fact is that they cannot under any circumstances arrest or detain you (same thing) for an outstanding traffic fine for which there is no warrant of arrest.

They may serve you with a summons to appear in court, as long as the court date on that summons is at least 14 days in the future (Sundays and public holidays excluded) but they may not force you to pay there and then.

Similarly, they may not serve you with a summons with a court date any sooner than 14 days into the future.

Seminars, toolkits and camera and speeding fines

There is an awful lot of misinformation available on the internet with respect to the unlawfulness of traffic fines in general and in particular, camera fines. This is because a number of individuals and companies alike make a significant amount of money from instilling fear and lying to members of the public.

In particular, alarmist emails and “Traffic Fine Toolkits” spread lies and very dangerous misinformation with respect to both AARTO and the legality of fines in order to drum up customers.

Despite repeated advisories and published factual information from JPSA, members of the public continue to believe the hogwash published by these people and continue to spend inordinate amounts of money on their wares like CD Toolkits, eBooks and even exorbitantly priced seminars in their lust to “get away with” their traffic fines on the one end of the scale or comply with AARTO on the other.

Misinformation is often published by these predators to entice people to buy their wares and the net result is a public that is misinformed and non-compliant with the law. The very same members of the public who buy into this nonsense then routinely say “I am a law-abiding citizen” when referring to how they have been “illegally trapped”, etc. This is bizarre to say the least, but it does not alter the fact that this is what is happening.

When it comes to the use of speed measuring devices and cameras in law enforcement exercises, the TCSP guidelines and SANS 1795 (SABS) specifications always apply however an enormous amount of misinterpretation and outright nonsense is then applied to these guidelines and specifications by those who apply and/or misinterpret them.

Some of the provisions that are applicable under the TCSP guidelines are as follows:

All equipment used must meet SANS 1795 standards, must be calibrated regularly and must be operated by a traffic officer qualified in the use of that equipment.
No speed trap may be set up within 300m of the commencement of a speed limit zone either way. This does not mean that it may not be set up within 300m of a speed limit sign that is the same as that applicable in the area in which the exercise is being conducted.
Where cameras are used, there must be an accompanying camera warning sign unless the DPP has specifically stated that this is not necessary at that site. There is no requirement that such a camera warning sign must be in place if you are stopped immediately and fined.
All camera evidence must have the data embedded on it in human readable format, easily viewable by a person with normal eyesight at the time that it is captured. There is no requirement in the TCSP guidelines for cross hairs to appear on this photograph but they should be there to show that the measurement was taken in the general vicinity of the number plate or headlight. Take note however that some equipment takes two photographs at the same time and not all equipment used is laser based for which this would be a requirement.
All portable speed measuring equipment (SME) must be mounted on a firm and stable surface and this means that it must be on a tripod in most instances. The tripod itself also has to be on a firm and stable surface since there is no use in mounting the SME on a tripod and then putting that tripod on loose stones that allow it to wobble about.
There is absolutely no requirement that any speed trap must be visible and traffic officers operating this equipment may hide if they wish or are instructed to do so. Similarly, whilst it is certainly unethical and unfair for these to be set up on anything other than flat road surfaces, there is nothing that prohibits these from being set up on a downhill or uphill. In fact most speed traps are set up on downhill slopes because the speed limit is the speed limit, uphill, downhill or on a flat.
The alleged infringer is entitled to be given (not just see) a copy photograph or image of the alleged offence and the traffic authority concerned must do so free of charge.

The TCSP guidelines are comprehensive and fairly clear, however as mentioned previously, they are often misinterpreted. JPSA has published these guidelines on the internet and you can download them at the JPSA’s AARTO website, however we warn that misinterpreting them can have very serious consequences and we urge you to rather seek professional advice from us.

Similarly, should you wish to become fully informed about your rights and responsibilities with respect to traffic law, we suggest that you consider attending one of our workshops or seminars that are run from time to time. Details of these are also available on any of our websites.

Making representation or defending yourself in court

Anyone who thinks that they are capable of successfully making representation to traffic authorities or public prosecutors or indeed defending themselves in court is either an attorney or a fool. Yes, there may be times when one’s justification for committing an infringement or offence is so obvious that it would not be deemed necessary to seek professional help but in the vast majority of cases, this is not the case.

Just as one would not consider conducting brain surgery on oneself, even if you were a brain surgeon, similarly, it is advisable that you seek professional help in either submitting a representation or defending a matter in court. By “professional help” in the case of traffic offences, we mean a traffic expert or attorney who specialises in traffic offences and/or criminal law.

Trying to handle things yourself can have undesired consequences and let’s face it, there are very few traffic experts in this country and fewer yet attorneys who specialise in traffic offences. There is simply not enough money in it and that is why this situation exists.

JPSA offers specialised traffic offence related assistance and consultation/expert evidence and witnesses – details of which can be found on its AARTO website.

Dealing with unlawful arrest

Anyone who is subjected to being unlawfully arrested has recourse available to them by means of civil litigation.

However, despite this fact, very few people ever pursue this route due to the following reasons:

Not knowing how to go about lodging a claim for or indeed that one can lodge a civil claim for unlawful arrest.
Thinking that this will be too expensive a process or indeed a waste of time and money.
Waiting too long before instituting an unlawful arrest claim. All unlawful arrest claims must be instituted within six months of the commission of the act unless there are extenuating circumstances that surround them and condonation is applied for and granted by a court.
The belied that lodging a complaint with the ICD or the Internal Affairs Department of the relevant traffic authority will deal with the situation.
Fear of retaliation or intimidation by the person or authority concerned in effecting that unlawful arrest.

The fact is that if more people were to proceed with unlawful arrest claims, fewer incidences of unlawful arrest would ultimately be the result. This is especially true in light of the judgement passed in the Pretoria High Court in 2010 that all officers against whose employers unlawful arrest claims are successfully lodged must now pay their own legal expenses.

The costs associated with taking such action are actually surprisingly low, given that there are a number of attorneys and law firms who are prepared to act on a contingency basis in these cases, meaning that they will take a share of the settlement if the claim is successful and nothing if it is not.

JPSA refers victims of unlawful arrest to such firms and we encourage every member of the public who is affected by an incident of unlawful arrest to take advantage of this and approach us for assistance.

By far the most important factor in ensuring success for unlawful arrest claims is the existence of details surrounding the incident. It is therefore extremely important for anyone to be as observant and accurate in establishing the details of whom it was that acted unlawfully against them, as well as the date, time and place/s that this occurred

Trying to institute an unlawful arrest claim against persons and details unknown will not succeed and courts are not interested in innuendo and conjecture.

Remaining safe on our roads

Most obviously, the best way to remain safe and avoid being prosecuted on our roads is to abide by all traffic laws and drive with extreme care and vigilance. Getting smart and believing that you can beat the odds in either avoiding or getting off your traffic fines and/or being involved in a serious collision is foolhardy to say the least. No-one can beat the odds forever and there are no exceptions to this rule.

Driving within the speed limit at all times is very important, but is just one of the areas that all motorists should concentrate on. Refraining from the use of alcohol and/or drugs prior to or during driving is an absolute must and our message on this is simply that zero alcohol is the golden rule when driving. Not one or two drinks etc. – no drinks.

But aside from speed and alcohol or drugs, there are several hundred other “rules of the road” and safe driving practices that must be adhered to and you need to be aware of these and abide by them at all times. Remember always that as much as you make efforts to remain a “law-abiding citizen”, you are not the only driver on the road and there are an enormous amount of people on the road who do not and never will abide by the law.

It is not your responsibility to play policeman and chase after or reprimand them for what they do but it is your responsibility to avoid them and where possible report them so that something may be done about them. JPSA will be providing facilities to do so through its AARTO website.

It is also incumbent on every motorist to know how to behave on the roads and also to be up to speed with what the real traffic laws are. To this end, JPSA will be conducting regular workshops and seminars for the public to bring themselves up to speed with these; details of which will be available on the JPSA’s AARTO website

Most current documentation

Unlike other publications that do the rounds via email, JPSA does to place indefinite validity periods on its advisories. This document will expire on 1 April 2011 and will no longer be readable at that time. The most current version of this and other documentation will always be available at JPSA’s official website at www.jp-sa.org and you are encouraged to check regularly for the latest version.

SnipImage(16)

About Justice Project South Africa

Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) was established in 2008, primarily in response to an identified need for an organisation that addresses power abuse and corruption within law enforcement authorities’ structures and due to the failure of other structures that claim to be or where established to do so.

The organisation is a registered Section 21, non-profit Company and will remain as such and fully independent for as long as it exists. It is neither a vigilante nor politically driven organisation and has no objectives other than ensuring that its mandate in terms of ensuring fair and equitable law enforcement prevails and more recently that real, tangible road safety initiatives and results are attained.

Due to an almost complete lack of Corporate Social Investment (CSI) in it, JPSA has embarked on the provision of a number of chargeable services that it is able to provide in order to sustain itself. The concept of supporting an organisation that appears to tackle unjust and/or inequitable law enforcement seems to be distasteful to a large number of businesses and corporations who do not wish to appear to be supporting something or someone who dares tread these waters.

Our objectives are not and never will be anti-government or law enforcement and in fact JPSA works in close cooperation with many agencies of government and law enforcement to attain its objectives.

More information on JPSA and its related projects can be found at its website at www.jp-sa.org and we can be contacted by any of the means that appear on the header of the first page of this publication.

SnipImage(16)

Share and Enjoy:

Posted in Car Insurance Law, Did you know?, Road Safety, Safe Driving Tips, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Easy Steps and Guide to Reporting an Accident [Part1]

Written on December 13th, 2010 by jonckie@arrivealive.co.za
Categories: Car Accidents, Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Law, Did you know?, Road Safety

Do you know what to expect when you go to report your vehicle accident?

We know that we have to report the incident but are often unaware of the documentation to be completed and why it is so essential to make a full and complete disclosure.

Earlier this week my mom was involved in a typical “fender bender” accident in Oudtshoorn. She was in a parked position having just exited her parking bay when another elderly lady with a small bakkie drove into the back door of her car. Fortunately for her the damage is minimal and the other driver was most helpful in providing details. They even arrived simultaneously at the local Police station to report the accident.

But what if this is not the situation? What must I know about reporting an accident and which information should I gather?

We would like to discuss this topic on the Car Insurance Blog and provide advice to our vehicle owners.

Part 1 The basics of reporting an accident

In this first discussion we would like to reflect on information made available by the South African Police Services to both officers and the public.

What does the law require?

A driver of a vehicle which has been involved in a road accident must report the accident within 24 Hours of its occurrence to any metropolitan, municipal or city police department, traffic department in South Africa or police station of the South African Police Service(SAPS).
This must be done in terms of the National Road Traffic Act, Act 93 of 1996.
A road accident must be reported in person. It may not be reported over the telephone or by a third party.
A driver must present his/her driving licence when the accident is reported.

Completing the Official Accident Report

The official accident report is not a mere formality and deserves your full attention. This Report is important for insurance companies when you submit your claim as they will request this report in processing your claim.

The official Accident Report (AR) Form will be completed for all accidents which occur on a public road and where a vehicle was involved, i.e all roads where the public or part of the public has right of access. This could include private property.
The AR Form can/may be completed personally by a driver of a vehicle by a driver of a vehicle involved in an accident where no criminal case docket has been opened/registered, only if he /she is in condition to do so.
A police official, traffic officer or other authorized person will be prepared to help the driver complete the form.
An individual AR Form will be completed for each driver/pedestrian reporting an accident, irrespective of how many parties there are. This is to give everyone the opportunity to give their version of the accident.

Details in the Accident Report

Every effort must be made to say exactly where the accident occurred, i.e the exact location. This is critical and of the utmost importance.
It is essential that the information recorded on the AR Forum is an accurate reflection of the circumstances of the accident, and that the form is correctly completed.
Once the AR Form has been completed, an entry will be made in the official Accident Register, Occurrence Book,etc at the Reporting Police Station.
The driver / pedestrian will then be given an official reference number as proof that the accident has been reported…eg AR NR 13/12/2010
A photocopy of the completed AR Form will only be given to the driver / pedestrian if there is a request in writing, and the request is accompanied by the payment of the prescribed fee.

View an example at the Arrive Alive website at Accident Report Form

When will a road accident be criminally investigated by the SAPS?

* when a person has been killed (culpable homicide),

* when a person has been seriously injured,

* when a vehicle of the SAPS has been involved in an accident or contributed to an accident,

* when it appears that a serious offence has been committed , and/or

* when there is a written complaint that a specific criminal offence(Section)(traffic-related or not), has been committed, and that such complaint is brought to the attention of a station commissioner of a SAPS police station.

A criminal offence is committed if a road accident is not reported, not reported within 24-hours of the occurrence or a drivers licence is not produced when the accident is reported, and a criminal prosecution could follow.

Share and Enjoy:

Tags: accident report form, reporting an accident and car insurance, rules of the road, what do I need to know when reporting an accident, why do we report an accident
Posted in Car Accidents, Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Law, Did you know?, Road Safety | No Comments »

Bitterly cold in Europe provides opportunities to hijackers!

Written on December 11th, 2010 by jonckie@arrivealive.co.za
Categories: Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Crime, Car Insurance Law, Insurance Articles, Road Safety, Safe Driving Tips

frosdt Ever heard of the term frost –jacking? South African vehicle owners might not be familiar with this term but this is something that our friends from the Northern Hemisphere are well aware of – and something that might cost them their cars!!

Car Insurers in Europe have warned motorists to be extra vigilant when defrosting their cars in the morning to avoid becoming a victim of frost-jacking.

What is frost –jacking?

There has been a spate of incidents up and down the UK where opportunist thieves have pounced on cars as the owners have left the engines running to warm up before heading off to work. It could be summarized as hijacking a vehicle where a vehicle owner leaves his vehicle engine running in the process of defrosting the windscreen. Even though a less violent type of hijacking, the financial consequences could be more severe!

Why is frost –jacking such a danger to vehicle ownership?

Car Insurers have warned that vehicle owner might not be covered for such vehicle loss by their car insurance policies as this kind of theft could invalidate the insurance policy. Leaving a car unattended with the engine running is an open invitation to thieves, and this could potentially leave your insurance cover void.

It has been reported that in just one week 50 frost-jacking incidents have been recorded in the West Midlands in Britain, with 3 attacks taking place within 20 minutes in the Greater Manchester area on a Monday morning. Vehicle thieves and hijackers are believed to be roaming the streets on the prowl for drivers leaving the cars running while they warm up and defrost their windscreens, so it’s vital drivers don’t leave their cars unattended to avoid becoming a victim of this kind of crime.

Vehicle owners have been warned to be extra vigilant and be attentive to where they park their cars and not to leave these vehicle unattended when the key is in the ignition!

We would like to urge vehicle owners to pay attention to vehicle security at all times!

Car Insurance and Crime

Car Insurance and Hijacking

Share and Enjoy:

Tags: frost -jacking and rejection of accident claims, frost-jacking and car insurance, hijacking and car insurance, safe parking
Posted in Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Crime, Car Insurance Law, Insurance Articles, Road Safety, Safe Driving Tips | No Comments »

Yes -Your drivers license can now be suspended for excessive speeding!!

Written on December 9th, 2010 by jonckie@arrivealive.co.za
Categories: Car Accidents, Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Law, Did you know?, Road Safety, Safe Driving Tips

SnipImage(16) Several emails have been directed to the Arrive Alive website with the same request:

“Is it true that your may lose your drivers license for speeding?”

An email has been doing the rounds with exactly this message – and I would like to quote:

Speeding Violations – Driving License Suspension

Drivers and Line Managers must please take note of the latest amendment to the National road Traffic Act which became effective on 20th November 2010, to kerb the lawlessness and limit the carnage on our roads. Magistrates have been granted extra power to suspend driving licences in instances where motorists exceed 30km/h above the speed limit in urban areas (eg: 90+ km/h in a 60 km/h zone) and 40km/h above the speed limit outside an urban area.

This is now law as from 20/11/2010 and a magistrate may where considered necessary flex their muscles and suspend your licence. The simple principle now applies do not speed under any circumstances. The risk is great, the outcome could be disastrous.

SnipImage(16)

Confirmation of amendment wich affects speeding violations

The Arrive Alive website received notice of this amendment earlier in November and we would like to quote from an email by Legislative Expert Alta Swanepoel:

The National Road Traffic Act, 1996 will be amended on 20 November 2010 by the implementation of:

 The National Road Traffic Amendment Act 1999 (Act No. 21 of 1999) – Proclamations 48 of 2000 published in Gazette 21425 of 31 July 2000 and Proclamation 61 of 2010 published in Gazette 33742 of 10 November 2010.

 The National Road Traffic Amendment Act, 2008 (Act No. 64 of 2008) – Proclamation 60 of 2010 published in Gazette 33742 of 10 November 2010.

The implementation of the two amendment acts has various implications of which a few are listed for your information:

Amendment Act 64 of 2008:

Offences added to section 35 on automatic suspension of driving licences – conviction on a speeding offence of driving faster than 30 km/h over speed limit in an urban area and 40 km/h over speed limit outside an urban area will result in the automatic suspension of a person’s driving licence. The reasons for the suspension not to be enforced by a Magistrate, must be related to the offence, not the offender

Share and Enjoy:

Tags: speeding and car insurance, speeding offense, sppeding and suspension of license
Posted in Car Accidents, Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Law, Did you know?, Road Safety, Safe Driving Tips | No Comments »

Ombudsman says your car insurance might not cover engine damage from driving through water!!

Written on December 8th, 2010 by jonckie@arrivealive.co.za
Categories: Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Law, Ombudsman

Car-Insurance-and-driving-through-water Do you sometimes take the chance to drive through deep water? It might be time to consider the consequences not only from the view of safety – but also with a view to financial loss if your claim for damage to the engine is rejected!!

Engines damaged after driving through pools of water on the road during the rainy season might not be covered by certain insurance policies, the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance said.

“Driving through pools of standing water which may span across the road could lead to the potential exclusion of damage to an engine, if water is ingested into the engine,” a statement from ombud Brian Martin said.

He said motorists often move through the pools, particularly if they see other vehicles doing so.

“Consequently, if your engine is damaged through water getting into the engine without other damage to the vehicle, your insurer may decline liability for any claim for damage to the engine itself.

“This could leave you facing a very hefty bill”, said Martin.

Owners of bakkies and sports utility vehicles may not have the problem, but many modern cars have air intake systems low in the engine bay and are at risk of having water sucked in to them.

Advice to vehicle owners

Martin advises motorists to check their insurance policies to check if they are covered for such damage and to avoid driving through pools on the road where possible, or to be careful when doing so.

[Reporting from SAPA]

Decision by the Ombudsman

Cause of damage a specifically excluded situation

Facts:

On Saturday afternoon the insured was travelling along Rossini Boulevard, a dual carriage way in Vanderbijlpark. Because of a heavy downpour there was water across the road. The insured, traveling in a two-year old BMW thought that the water was not deep and proceeded through it, but the water turned out to be deeper than expected and the engine eventually cut out. One of the residents of Rossini Boulevard used his Bakkie to pull the BMW out of the water.

The engine was damaged, the cost of repairs amounted to R9,527.39.

The insurer rejected liability on the ground that the policy exceptions, inter alia, stated – “We will not be liable for damage to the engine or tyres unless some other part of the vehicle is damaged at the same time”.

Ombudsman’s response

The Ombudsman agreed with the insurer that based on the facts, there was no cover in terms of the policy.

Also view:

Share and Enjoy:

Tags: engine damage and car insurance, engine damage from driving through water, water damage and car insurance
Posted in Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Claims, Car Insurance Law, Ombudsman | 7 Comments »

You HAVE to comply with the Rules of the Road even though others might not!!

Written on December 6th, 2010 by jonckie@arrivealive.co.za
Categories: Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Law, Did you know?, Road Safety, Safe Driving Tips

Parking offence We would like to share a rather interesting request for information about a parking fine – and the response received from one of the Experts on Traffic Enforcement!

Question:

“Last night I recieved a fine on Loop st in Cape Town after parking where directed by a parking fellow in a space that someone had just vacated.

It was about 9.30pm at night. I asked a local security enforcer and then the police what the fine was for. Nobody seemed to be able to tell from the placement of my car. A couple of other cars had tickets and most didn’t. Again there didn’t appear to be any reason for this.

I see your site has much information on cameras. This is not a camera offence but a parking one (that i cannot figure out). I was told by the police to go to the public prosecutor to dispute it (I am a tourist here) and am willing to try that as I cannot figure out why I got it.

Also they have not clearly written down the number plate of my hire car (missed the C of the CA) and there is no way of figuring out what the fine is for since the handwriting is illegible.

Have you any suggestions? Some images of the car attached. I happened to have my camera with me last night.

thanks
S.”

Answer:

“Dear S.

Firstly, the reason that greedfines is called greedfines is because camera trapping is in our opinions a form of generating nothing but revenue for the authorities and contractors alike. They have little or nothing to or with increasing road safety or reducing incidents of speeding and the site makes this very clear.

I see from the photographs that you sent that the cars in it are parked straddling a yellow road marking and I am often gobsmacked by the way in which almost everyone immediately forgets what they study so hard when swotting to get their driving licence. A solid yellow marking means that no vehicle is allowed to drive or park there and may but does not have to be accompanied by a road traffic sign.

Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong but don’t these photographs, presumably one of which is of your vehicle, clearly show that the vehicles in question were parked in a no parking area or possibly even the centre of the road? Instead of proving your innocence, they prove your guilt. I cannot comment on why it would have been that only some vehicles were ticketed but it may have something to do with the car guard having some form of “arrangement” with someone.

Why it is that people who are directed to park in no parking areas by people who appoint themselves as “car guards” and clearly know nothing about traffic law continue to take instructions from these people? Perhaps it is the belief that these people have some form of arrangement with traffic cops who will not ticket their “clients” or perhaps it is that most motorists have little or no regard for the law. The fact of the matter is that every motorist is obliged to know the basics traffic law and comply with it or they should not be on the road.

My suggestion is that you go and pay your fine and refrain from parking where you are not supposed to in the future. I would also recommend a refresher course in the “rules of the road” which you can complete at www.trafficsigns.co.za, an excellent resource for learner and veteran drives alike. Most veteran drivers are quite surprised at how little they know when they do the tests again for the first time.

Best Regards,

Howard Dembovsky
National Chairman – Justice Project South Africa”

Share and Enjoy:

Tags: illegal parking, parking and car insurance, parking fine, rules of the road and car insurance
Posted in Car Insurance Advice, Car Insurance Law, Did you know?, Road Safety, Safe Driving Tips | No Comments »

« Older Entries Newer Entries »

Car Insurance Law

Get an Insurance Quote Today