Cedric Stephens | The pervasive indifference to road laws

The introduction to today’s article is one reader’s response to my February 2 piece, ‘Crash Prevention Central to Insurance Business’.

It read: “As usual, you are spot on with your critique of the local insurance industry. My comments are about the estimated 25 per cent of local vehicle owners who do not buy compulsory third-party motor insurance.

“I have had two accidents with uninsured motorists. The first involved a truck. The second was with a van with a private licence plate. Both vehicles were used for commercial purposes and were driven by someone who was not the owner. The second accident was a frontal collision and the repair cost almost equating with the value of my vehicle. In both cases, the owners denied responsibility. My insurer engaged an investigator to determine culpability in the second. The report was in my favour.

“The police reaction to my reports was identical even though different stations were involved. In both cases, the officer who took my report indicated that the other party could be prosecuted for having a vehicle on the road without insurance. However, they declined to do so. The expectations were that I, a mere citizen, would pursue the matter.

“Given that motor vehicle third-party insurance is mandatory, I find it hard to understand the authorities’ lack of response to non-compliance with the law. If the vehicles had been stopped at a checkpoint, would they have been allowed to continue their way without insurance coverage? Does police indifference contribute to the high percentage of uninsured vehicles on the roads? Is there no central police office that cases like mine are referred to for action? Is the police high command aware that their failure to bring charges against the offenders in cases like mine is inconsistent with their mission to protect and serve?

“Then again, at a mere $20,000 penalty for driving without insurance, and the high probability of escaping prosecution appear insufficient to persuade uninsured drivers to change their ways. Because of this, law-abiding motorists and others end up being saddled with millions of dollars in damage, and weeks, if not months, of inconvenience and without compensation. In the words of one former government official, they are shafted! May I have your comments?”

The reader gave permission for her email to be sent to the head of the Jamaica Constabulary Force’s Public Safety and Traffic Enforcement Branch, Assistant Commissioner of Police Dr Gary McKenzie for an official response. He demurred.

Silence from the PSTEB

Media reports suggest that police now have more capacity to use the expanding and nationwide CCTV surveillance systems and other technologies to monitor and prosecute more drivers for traffic violations, and specifically for non-compliance with the compulsory insurance regulations routinely and remotely.

These tools, on paper, should contribute to an increase in the rate of compliance with the Road Traffic Act and regulations and the Motor Vehicles Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third-Party Risks) Act. Is this happening? What does the data say?

Research indicates that there are wide variations in the rate of non-compliance with compulsory motor vehicle laws. They range from one to two per cent in the United Kingdom, four per cent in Canada and an average of 12.6 per cent across the United States.

Rates differ between provinces and states in North America. The average rates for Texas, California and Florida, for example, were estimated at 15-20 per cent and 25.6 per cent, respectively.

Minimising non-compliance

The UK has implemented several measures to ensure compliance with compulsory vehicle insurance laws. They include:

• Motor insurance database, a central database that records insurance details for all vehicles in the UK, allows law enforcement and other authorised parties to verify insurance status quickly;

• Continuous insurance enforcement, which was Introduced in 2011 and requires that vehicles must be always insured, even if they are not being driven;

• Penalties – drivers caught without insurance can face severe penalties, including fines of up to the local current equivalent of $200,000, six penalty points on their licence, and the possibility of having their vehicle clamped, impounded, or even destroyed;

• Public awareness campaigns, run by government and insurance industry to educate drivers about the importance of insurance and the consequences of non-compliance; and;

• Electronic insurance verification – like other countries, the UK is exploring electronic systems to verify insurance coverage in real-time, further reducing the likelihood of uninsured drivers.

Law enforcement is one of a mix of strategies employed by the UK government. I found the public awareness campaign intriguing. The compulsory insurance law was introduced in Jamaica in the 1930s when the island was a British colony. Justice David Batts in his book The Law and the Constitution for Every Jamaican stated that three decades later when Jamaica attained independence, “40 per cent of Jamaicans were functionally illiterate”. I do not recall seeing or hearing about any local public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about the need for compulsory third-party motor vehicle insurance.

Some motor insurers, local and overseas, have identified a business opportunity for risk averse motorists. They offer uninsured motorists insurance. Coverage is triggered in those cases when an insured motorist has the misfortune to be involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist.

Finally, time constraints do not allow me to research whether the information that was requested from PSTEB falls under the exemption clauses of the Access to Information Act 2002. More anon.

Cedric E. Stephens provides independent information and advice about the management of risks and insurance. For free information or counsel, write to: aegis@flowja.com or business@gleanerjm.com