How often haven’t you seen a bakkie with several people in the back, and wondered what would happen to them should it have to brake suddenly or, at worst, crash? And what is considered legal transport, and what is illegal? Read on, and find out more.
THE BACK OF A BAKKIE IS NOT DESIGNED TO CARRY PEOPLE
According to Howard Dembovski of Justice Project South Africa, the goods section of vehicles, such as the back of bakkies, is not at all designed for transporting people. For instance, there are no seats, no seat belts, no crumple zones, no airbags, and no protection from side collisions.
TRANSPORTING PEOPLE IN THE BACK OF A BAKKIE SHOULD BE BANNED ALTOGETHER
Dembovski states that transporting people in the back of bakkies or in any goods section of other vehicles should be banned, irrespective of whether people are being charged a fee or not.
SAFETY IS THE KEY ISSUE
What makes the lives of children being transported free-of-charge any less valuable than the lives of those paying for transport? Lives are lives, and should they not also be protected? Even if chairs with safety belts are fitted to the back of a bakkie, they would have to pass a test to ensure that they comply legally.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A BAKKIE CARRYING PEOPLE IN THE BACK HAS A COLLISION?
It is obvious what will happen to people who don’t even have safety belts in a bakkie when a collision occurs. They will, most likely, be thrown out of the vehicle and will suffer serious injuries or even die.
WHAT DOES THE LAW HAVE TO SAY?
On 11 May 2017, an amendment of Regulation 250 of the National Road Traffic Regulations was promulgated. The amendment says that it is illegal to transport children in the rear part of bakkies, or other goods vehicles, such as a car’s boot, and the good’s section of a hatchback or minibus. The only proviso is that it must be done for a reward or fee.
WHAT ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE TRANSPORTED FREE-OF-CHARGE?
That means people can still be transported in the back of bakkies and other vehicles if they are travelling free-of-charge. It would mean that it is perfectly legal for a group of kids to be driven around in the back of a bakkie free-of-charge.
SO THEN WHAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE NEW AMENDMENT?
The Government promulgated the amendment to address the many road fatalities and car crashes involving paying children being taken school in the back of bakkies.
THE DRIVER WHO CHARGES A FEE MUST ALSO APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO DO SO
The driver who charges a fee for transporting people in the goods section of a vehicle also has to apply for a permit, in order to comply with the National Land Transport Act.
WITH WHAT DO DRIVERS HAVE TO COMPLY WHEN TRANSPORTING CHILDREN LEGALLY IN A VEHICLE FOR REWARD?
Some of the requirements are that the vehicle must not be older than 12 years, and must pass a roadworthy test every 6 months. A seat belt has to be provided for every child, and there should be a fire extinguisher and first aid kit on board. The vehicle must also have a valid operating licence.
A LOOPHOLE TO THE LATEST AMENDMENT
Workers that are being transported from one site to the other in a bakkie are not being charged for the transport, which means that it’s legal. In the same way, a wealthy parent with a bakkie can offer to take 10 kids to school free-of-charge every day, and that would be legal.
It seems so contradictory. On the one hand, the motor industry is becoming more safety conscious through promoting NCAP safety ratings, but on the other hand, people are still being transported in the backs of bakkies. No passenger car occupants would consider being transported in the ‘shell’ of a car, and sit on the bare floor, whilst the driver has a seat, air bags and safety belt. Then why is it acceptable for that similar situation to apply to children or other people being transported in the back of bakkies?
Finally, the law is strict about how children are transported in passenger cars. They have to be strapped in special seats depending on their age. In fact, this is a requirement as part of the NCAP safety ratings. How can that scenario be reconciled with unstrapped children in a bakkie where they could most likely be ejected because of a sudden jolt or collision?
Finally, why can’t, for instance, parents and civil society petition the Government to ban the carrying of people in the backs of bakkies and similar vehicles, irrespective of whether it is for free or not?
Disclaimer:
This article was prepared by Eric Sandmann in his personal capacity. The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the views and opinions of Prime Meridian Direct (Pty) Ltd, FSP41040 (car insurance and life cover products). The views and opinions in the article should not be attributed to anyone but the author unless expressly stated. Nothing in this article should be relied upon as advice, this publication is presented for informational purposes only. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found in this article, without first obtaining proper financial advice from the appropriate professional. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, or completeness, of any information linked from, referred to, or contained in this article. The author reserves the right, to edit and change the content of this article.
Transportation of People on Back of a Bakkie – What will the Law Change and Not Change? https://t.co/d8hIsgx5dB #ArriveAlive @JPSAorg pic.twitter.com/4SWPO8Diml
— Arrive Alive (@_ArriveAlive) July 11, 2017