Cedric Stephens | Finding a balance between leniency and the cat o’nine

Which driving behaviours are the most accurate predictors of the likelihood of crashes? This question is posed against the universal condemnation of the actions of the former commander of the Jamaica Constabulary Force’s Public Safety and Traffic Enforcement Branch, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bishop Dr Gary Welsh in relation to an incident of ‘stunt driving.’ It occurred along a busy road in St. Andrew. The Commissioner of Police, perhaps in response to public criticism, relieved ACP Welsh of his command. PSTEB was reportedly the brainchild of ACP Welsh.

What is stunt driving? Does the Road Traffic Act outlaw the practice? Are there any local data about the frequency of these stunts? Do ‘stunts’ cause crashes? How many stunt-caused accidents occurred last year in comparison to the number of murders, shootings, stabbings, rapes, and other serious incidents of crime? The negative comments that were made against ACP Welsh, presumably via social media platforms, appear unfair, uninformed, and irrational in the absence of these and other data and in the tradition of one of the leaders of the North American Continent. On the other hand, political decisions are seldom influenced by facts.

Jamaica’s new Road Traffic Act, unlike its Province of Ontario equivalent, does not expressly prohibit stunt driving. Sections 58 and 59 of the RTA speak to ‘reckless or dangerous driving’ and ‘careless driving’, respectively. Under Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act, “Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit” is regarded as stunt driving, according to Ticket Defenders Legal Services. “The legal grounds under which a Stunt Driving or Race Motor Vehicle charge can be issued also include:

• Competing or racing with another vehicle;

• Chasing another vehicle;

• Driving without due care and attention;

• Lifting some or all of a vehicle’s tires from the road;

• Driving where the tires lose traction with the road;

• Spinning or turning a vehicle in an uncontrolled manner;

• Driving beside another vehicle while in the oncoming lane of traffic for a prolonged period of time;

• Driving with someone in the trunk of the vehicle;

• Driving while not in the driver’s seat;

• Purposely preventing others from passing;

• Purposely stopping or slowing to interfere with other traffic;

• Driving unreasonably close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway; and

• Turning left at an intersection across vehicles with the right of way in the opposite direction upon the light turning green.”

Our lawmakers are aware of the driving behaviours that exist on Jamaica’s roads. That hundreds of lives are lost and thousands of persons that are injured each year due to traffic accidents. That the economic costs associated with these events are a drag on GDP growth. That information is easily available about the laws in other countries and that the new RTA may not be appropriate. Could the ACP’s actions in relation to the alleged stunt driving be influenced by factors that are not in the public domain?

Researchers at Canada’s University of Waterloo examined data from 28 million trips for possible links between four bad-driving behaviours namely, speeding, hard braking, hard acceleration, and hard cornering – and the likelihood of crashing. Speeding was “the riskiest kind of aggressive behaviour”, according to the scientists’ analysis of data from on-board devices that were fitted to the vehicles. The analysis revealed that “speeding is a strong predictor of crashes while statistically significant links to other kinds of aggressive driving couldn’t be established.” Importantly, stunt driving was not even mentioned though it is one of the most serious offences that can be issued by police under Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act.

The findings from the Canadian study are consistent with the contents of my October 7, 2018, article, “Fixation on Speed Limits,” and data published by the World Health Organization.

‘Publicity stunt.’

Leighton Levy is a journalist with 28 years’ experience who writes for SportMax. In an article dated August 28 with the headline “Publicity Stunt Involving André Russell’s Mercedes backfires badly,” he joins the chorus of criticism. His sources? Research that he conducted about the estimated value of the vehicle that was involved in the ‘stunt’ and opinions that were expressed as facts by persons on social media. There was nothing in the article that supported the assertion in the headline about a ‘publicity stunt.’

In Tameka Watson v The Commissioner of Police and The Attorney General of Jamaica, which was heard in the civil division of the Supreme Court in 2012, there were hints that Senior Superintendent Gary Welsh who, at the time was Commandant of the Police Academy, was considered by some of his superior officers, as ‘too lenient.’ Perhaps it was that history plus his lenient treatment of the alleged stunt driver of the ‘high-end Mercedes motor car’ – to quote the veteran journalist – that ultimately led to his public humiliation. It would have been more appropriate if ACP Welsh had followed the advice of the incoming Jamaica Teachers’ Association President Owen Speid and whipped the stunt and other careless drivers into line with the medieval cat o’nine tails.

- Cedric E. Stephens provides independent information and advice about the management of risks and insurance. If you need free information or counsel email aegis@flowja.com.