Paul A. Cobourne
(In a letter to the Editor)
AT APPROXIMATELY 8:45 p.m. on 18 October 2003 while driving my motor car along the Mountain View Road, a team of policemen who were conducting a 'spot-check' at the intersection with Langston Road stopped me.
One of the lawmen walked up to the car and I, in my usually courteous manner, acknowledged him and then asked him why I was stopped. He responded by saying that it was because of the use of the two white lights, commonly known as bumper lights, that are affixed to the lower ends of my car's front bumper.
In response, I told him that I was unaware that the use of the lights in question was a traffic offence and that he should direct me to the Section of the Road Traffic Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) that supports his action. He then pointed me to Section 40 (1)(a) of the Act that I was able to immediately find in a handbook that I had recently received from British Caribbean Insurance Company Limited (BCIC).
The Section states as follows:-
"During the period specified in this section, every motor vehicle, save as in this section mentioned, shall carry attached thereto-two similar head-lamps only (in this Act referred to as obligatory head-lamps) one on each side, so constructed and placed as to cast, when lighted, in the direction in which it is proceeding a white light only, sufficiently clear and strong as to afford adequate means of signalling the approach and position of such vehicle;"
TWO WHITE LIGHTS
Editor, it is my view that this particular section focuses on the two obligatory white head-lamps and does not in any way imply that these are the only two white lights that a motor vehicle must have.
This I pointed out to the police officer, who was still prepared to prosecute me under this section whether or not it was correct to do so. Clearly, he does not understand the wording in this section and he like many of us needs immediate clarification regarding its proper interpretation and application.
In fact it appears that there are some members of the Police Traffic Division who are of the view that the use of any white lights affixed to the front of a vehicle other than those referred to by section 40 (1)(a) is a traffic violation. This issue requires urgent legal clarification.
In an effort to educate this very responsive young officer, I then referred him to Section 41 (1)(a) of the Act that he appeared to have had no knowledge of. He asked me to read it for him and I did. The section states as follows:-
"No head lamp shall be used on any motor vehicle unless such lamp is so constructed, fitted and maintained that the beam of light emitted therefrom is permanently deflected downwards to such an extent that it is at all times incapable of dazzling any person standing on the same horizontal plane as the vehicle at a greater distance than twenty-five feet from the lamp whose eye level is not less than three feet six inches above that plane;"
After reading the section to him, I then held out on the view that I was not to be ticketed because my bumper lights had satisfied all the conditions highlighted by the section and therefore my use of them did not constitute a breach of the Act.
PRESENTING MY ARGUMENT
In fact, in presenting my arguments I told him that I was strongly of the view that while section 40 (1)(a) focuses on the two obligatory headlamps, Section 41(1)(a) implies that it is legal to use other lamps at the head of your vehicle provided they satisfied all the conditions laid out in this particular section.
He, of course, disagreed with this view. At this point, his 'double-stripe' superior who was attending to another motorist walked over and intervened. He was in full support of his subordinate's interpretation of Section 40(1)(a) of the Act.
In fact, he totally disregarded Section 41(1)(a) of the Act and was adamant that his subordinate should prosecute me (i.e. whether wrongly or rightly) and then I could go to the traffic court and challenge it. Further, this 'double-striped' police officer asserted that a particular Judge in the traffic court has advised the traffic cops to prosecute motorists for the use of 'excessive lights'.
Editor, while I would not want anyone to view this article as an indictment on the operation of the traffic division of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) or the administration of proper justice within the traffic court, having heard that comment makes me very suspicious of traffic cops.
Is there a mentality within some rank and file of the police traffic division that once a motorist is stopped for what appears to be a traffic violation, the next phase of the process is that motorist must be issued a ticket because he/she will more than likely be found guilty by the traffic court Judge? Editor, it is a fact that may prosecuted motorists are of the view that going to court to challenge the traffic police will be futile and as such they just end up paying the fines at the Inland Revenue Department. Sadly, traffic cops continue to feel encouraged by such actions.
WE MUST WAKE UP
Jamaicans, we must wake up to the reality that we cannot allow issues like these to go unnoticed because they will continue to fester until they reach an uncontrollable level. Motorists please do not continue to yield to the whims and fancies of those traffic cops who are of the view that once they have stopped you for a traffic violation then you are guilty.
Let us vow to fight them legally when we are of the view that we are innocent of the charge. Please also vow to be more conversant with the provisions of the Road Traffic act so that you will always know your rights on the road.
Editor, in closing I wish to say that I managed to argue enough on the spot to avoid being ticketed or prosecuted. I would however want some legal clarification regarding the correct interpretation and application of Sections 40 and 41 of the Act before I am faced with another situation like this.
PROPERLY GUIDED
In fact, I am hoping that this article will generate responses or comments from the legal fraternity, Island Traffic Authority and the JCF in such a manner that the public and the police can be properly guided. A lot of motorists have been ticketed under Section 40 (1)(a) of the Act for the use of lamps affixed to the front of their vehicles even when they satisfy all the criteria set out in Section 40(1)(a) of the said Act.
At this juncture, it may be necessary to mention that these lights were affixed to the car (1997 Toyota Camry) by the manufacturer and their operation is governed by an independent switch within the main switch that controls the operation of the two obligatory headlamps.
Each of these lights is located at either end of the front bumper of the car and they are not more than six inches from the ground.
In other words, they cannot be used as a substitute for the obligatory headlamps given the height of the vehicle and the fact that their beams permanently deflect downwards.
Further, that subsequent to the arrival of the car from Japan it underwent a fitness test at the Inland Traffic Authority at Swallowfield Road in Kingston and at no time was I informed by the seemingly well-experienced examiner of the possibility of being ticketed for the use of these 'bumper lights'.
- PAUL A. COBOURNE, 23 Park Circle East, Passagefort
