Legal

DNA Project highlights the importance of preserving the crime scene and DNA evidence

No Comments »Written on May 15th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Legal, Q&A
Tags: , ,

Tuesday, May 15, 2012: The DNA Project is a Cape Town- based initiative whose mission it is to raise awareness of the importance of DNA preservation at crime scenes, and in 2011 it combined forces with FoxP2 and created a TVC called ‘The Cigarette that saves lives’ which was flighted on Top TV last year, and DSTV and MNET in 2012.

To support the message of the TVC the creative team at FoxP2 conceptualized an activation to represent the loss and damage that first-on crime scene responders as well as the general public can effect to evidence left at a crime scene.  The activation took place on Tuesday morning, May 15, 2012 at the Cape Town Train Station and will show, using time-lapse videography of the activation, how the lack of proper preservation of a crime scene can destroy valuable evidence and the chance of a conviction.  The video of the activation will be posted on YouTube for public viewing.

The activation consisted of a large (8m x 6m) sand box filled with tiny stones of various colours depicting a mug shot of a convict holding up an ID board.  This box was placed in the busy open hall area of the Cape Town Metrorail station.  Commuters were encouraged to walk over the box, thus blurring the mug shot and making it increasingly difficult to see the convicts’ face.  The idea got the public involved in demonstrating how disturbing a crime scene can prevent criminals from being identified.

Commuters walking over the box and disturbing the image was captured using time-lapse video. This will be edited into a viral that is played at high speed in under one minute and used in a campaign over the social media network to spread awareness.

About The DNA Project:

After her father was brutally murdered in his Johannesburg home in 2004 and all traces of DNA and other forensic evidence were lost, destroyed and neglected due to the inexperience and lack of crime scene preservation awareness of the first on crime scene responders, Vanessa Lynch realised that something needed to be done to address this issue in SA and founded The DNA Project.   (See notes to editor).

Based on Interpol figures South Africa has high but manageable levels of property crime but an extraordinary high level of violent crime. It is South Africa’s high level of violent crime that sets the country apart from other crime-ridden societies; this finding is supported by CIAC data indicating that since 1994 recorded violent crime has been escalating at a faster rate than any other crime category.  It is primarily violent crime that fuels people’s fear of crime. To lose its label as crime capital of the world, violent crime levels have to drop substantially in South Africa, http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/CrimeIndex/01Vol5No1/World.html, as well as have our rate of conviction dramatically increase.

When is a Road in a Gated Estate regarded as a Public Road?

No Comments »Written on May 15th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Legal, Q&A, Traffic Fines
Tags: , ,

In recent months several visitors to the Arrive Alive website has complained about other road users driving recklessly and with a disregards for the safety of others within gated estates. We would like to use as an example one such an email sent to the Arrive Alive website:

Question:

"I have read your article on rules of the road and road safety in gated estates wherin you state that the"private roads " so often referred to are in fact Public Roads and fall under the Road Traffic Act 96 of 1996. I have an issue at the moment where a 4 year old child on his bike was allowed onto the "private road" in our estate without any adult supervision and coliided with our car because he could not stop. Our vehicle was stationery. We are taking the parents to the small claims court because they claim that children have the right of way in the estate according to the conduct rules of the HOA of the estate and refuse to pay damages.

The child was riding down the road ,which is one way, in the wrong direction. The collision accured because he was not visible to our vehicle as we came round a 90 degree corner. We were able to stop in time but not the child who collided with the front of our vehicle.

Where in the road traffic act does it say that the rules of the road on a public road also apply in estates ? We are attempting to prove negligence on the part of the mother. I would appreciate a comment and or the relevant reference in the act pertaining to road rules in estates."

Answer:

The relevant provisions are the definition of a public road and the presumption on public roads – section 69.
“public road” means any road, street or thoroughfare or any other place (whether a thoroughfare or not) which is commonly used by the public or any section thereof or to which the public or any section thereof has a right of access, and includes—
(a)        the verge of any such road, street or thoroughfare;
(b)        any bridge, ferry or drift traversed by any such road, street or thoroughfare; and
(c)        any other work or object forming part of or connected with or belonging to such road, street or thoroughfare;
Sec 69.    Presumptions regarding public road, freeway and public road in urban area
(1)        Where in any prosecution in terms of this Act it is alleged that an offence was committed on a public road, the road concerned shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be presumed to be a public road.
(2)        Where in any prosecution in terms of this Act it is alleged that an offence was committed on a freeway, the road concerned shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be deemed to be a freeway.
(3)        Where in any prosecution in terms of this Act it is alleged that an offence was committed on a public road in an urban area, the road concerned shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be presumed to be a public road in an urban area.

Alta Swanepoel

Rules of the Road and Road Safety within Gated Estates and Communities

Also view:

Insurance fraud charges against Radovan Krejcir put on hold

No Comments »Written on April 16th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Fraud, Legal, Life
Tags: , ,

Fraud charges against Czech businessman Radovan Krejcir were provisionally withdrawn in the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court on Monday.

Krejcir appeared before magistrate T Carstens and the State provisionally withdrew charges, citing other High Court cases that were underway.

The fraud charge against him relates to a R4.5 million claim he made to an insurance company, allegedly using medical papers stating he had cancer. His urologist Marian Tupy previously admitted to falsifying insurance documents so Krejcir could be paid out for bladder cancer.

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said the charges were provisionally withdrawn pending the finalisation of the application for a review and the setting aside of Tupy's plea and sentence agreement.

“We can’t have two legal processes underway and parallel to each other,” NPA spokesman Mthunzi Mhaga said.

“The outcome of the review application will have a bearing on the prosecution of the case against Mr Krejcir.”

He said the NPA had already filed its opposing papers.

Outside court earlier, State prosecutor Riegal du Toit said he filed the application because other court cases overlapped with this case. He said the accused did not recant his version, but said he should never have pleaded guilty.

“We'll see what happens now in the High Court,” he said.

Krejcir looked happy and relaxed. He was wearing a black blazer and t-shirt with jeans. He fought extradition to his home country in 2008, where he was sentenced in absentia to six-and-a-half years for tax fraud. He was also charged with conspiracy to murder, counterfeiting, extortion, and abduction.

Last year, police “exchanged information” with Krejcir during their investigation into the murder of Teazers strip club owner Lolly Jackson, who also lived in Bedfordview, Joburg.

Both Krejcir and Jackson's business partner Mark Andrews had claims against Jackson's estate, which was being handled by lawyer Ian Jordaan. A charred body, believed to be Jordaan's, was found on top of his bakkie, next to the R59 in Brackendowns, Alberton, in September. – Sapa

Also view:

Radovan Krejcir implicated in life insurance fraud

E-Toll Tariffs described by driving specialist as “economic terrorism”

No Comments »Written on April 16th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Aarto, Legal, Q&A, Traffic Fines
Tags: , ,

Road safety specialist and long-time opponent of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project tolls, Rob Handfield - Jones, has reacted with shock to the published e-toll tariffs, calling them "extortion" and "economic terrorism".

"According to the tariffs published by SANRAL, a so-called 'alternate user', being someone who isn't registered with SANRAL [currently over 90% of Gauteng motorists], will have to pay up to three times more to use the GFIP roads than a registered user," he said. "The Minister of Transport has shown himself to be entirely out of touch by approving these outrageous rates in the face of overwhelming public opposition to e-tolling. It is outright extortion. It is economic terrorism. It is SANRAL telling citizens: capitulate and register with us or we will bankrupt you."

Handfield - Jones, who was one of the first to alert the public to the financial hardship that awaited them if the GFIP e-tolling system went ahead, urged motorists not to fit e-tags and to register their support for the court challenge to the system by visiting the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance website at www.outa.co.za.

"The story of e-tolling is the story of the laws that SANRAL has broken, flouted or re-written to suit its agenda," he commented. "Few of their actions meet the standards of inclusiveness our democracy demands. The result is a R30 billion scandal which rivals the arms deal in deceit and under-handedness," he concluded.

Also view:

SANRAL statement on e-road users

What does the law say about passengers drinking alcohol?

No Comments »Written on April 13th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Aarto, Legal, Q&A, Traffic Fines
Tags: , ,

Question:

I am trying to find the particular Johannesburg bylaw that will deal with passengers drinking in a car. Are passengers allowed to drink alcohol in a motor vehicle? What differentiates them from, say, limousines, buses and planes?

Answer from our experts:

As far as I know the by-law relates to drinking in public, not really drinking in motor cars. If a person can be seen drinking by other persons in a public place or vehicle he may be charged. [Alta Swanepoel]

I concur with Alta’s statement on this issue and I would go further to say that I am not aware of any bylaw that makes it unlawful for anyone who is not driving to consume alcohol in a motor vehicle, which is in fact private property.

However I would hasten to add that the private property in question would be in a public place by virtue of being on a public road and therefore there may be a possibility that this could be interpreted as drinking in public. The consumption of alcohol should really be limited to places designated for that purpose like one’s own home or a licensed premises. [Howard Dembovsky]

Speed Enforcement should not be focused on generating revenue!

No Comments »Written on April 9th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Aarto, Legal, Q&A, Traffic Fines
Tags: , ,

Many road users are most disgruntled when traffic fines are increasing their costs of transportation. On the Car Insurance Blog we shared information on the positioning of mobile speed cameras in a post titled "Where should mobile speed cameras be positioned?". This question has been raised by a motorist fined for speeding and one of the many disgruntled road users who believe that too many traffic officials are hiding away trying to "trap" road users who may be driving a bit over the limit.

We shared the response from the experts:

Answer:

There is no legislation as such that specifies the minimum distance from a the commencement of a speed limit zone from which a speed measurement exercise may be set up however, the TCSP guidelines for prosecution using speed measurement equipment applies.

For your information, the acronym “TCSP” stands for “Technical Committee for Standards and Procedures” and South African case law “State v Snyman 2001 (1) SACR 354 (N)” has established that the “guidelines” are not merely a set of recommendations, but a required set of standards that must be followed.

Section 1.7 of the current TCSP Guidelines in use (2007) state that “No prosecution may be instituted where the speed measurement was taken within 300 metres of the commencement of the speed limit zone, except with permission from the Director of Public Prosecutions.” It is very important to note however:

1. The last part of this statement which says: “except with permission from the Director of Public Prosecutions”.
2. This does not mean that such a speed measurement may not be conducted within 300m of a speed limit sign.
3. This limitation applies to 300m from either side of the commencement of the speed limit zone.

I hope that this answers your question.

Best Regards,

Howard Dembovsky
National Chairman - Justice Project South Africa (NPC)

To Conclude:

This has been put in even better perspective by the person raising the initial request with the following reply and the above photo:

"Thank you for your assistance and quick response.

What prompted my question was that I was recently "trapped" by an official hiding behind the bush conveniently growing close to the right of the road directly after a rapid reduction from 120 kph on the N2 near Somerset West (Please see attached photo)

Without braking hard there is no way you can reduce speed from 120kph to 70kph over that distance. I never deliberately exceed the speed limit and I feel that the location of this speed trap has little to do with law enforcement but rather with generation of revenue.

I acknowledge I was in the wrong and support the authorities efforts to instill respect for the law but feel this type of underhanded action is not warranted.

Thank you once again for your input."

We are in agreement that traffic enforcement should focus on more than only speed enforcement, and it is very disappointing if officers focus on areas where they know that the sudden reduction in speed limits might provide more opportunities to issue speed fines. We also need to focus on removing unlicensed drivers, non-roadworthy vehicles and drunk drivers! This cannot be achieved from behind a camera!

Also view:

Corruption, Traffic Enforcement and Road Safety

JMPD 100X value traffic fines cause panic and disbelief

2 commentsWritten on April 4th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Aarto, Legal, Q&A, Traffic Fines
Tags: , ,

The recent spate of outrageously high fine amounts (100 times the original penalty amount) on AARTO 09 results of representations originating from the JMPD when they summarily reject AARTO 08 representations has caused widespread panic and disbelief in the hearts of affected parties.

The explanation that has been offered by the JMPD through the RTIA’s deputy registrar, Mr Sherman Amos on the Midday Report on Talk Radio 702 was that that this was caused by a “software upgrade” which has now caused the JMPD’s finances to be represented in cents. This explanation differs from the one given to the Times Newspaper which said that it was caused by the dropping of a decimal point.

The example below is from an AARTO 09 received by someone in January 2012 and as can be clearly seen, there is no decimal or cents value on it.

The question that must be asked is what possible reason could the JMPD or their contractors have had to change their accounting records and the references in these documents to cents, with a Rand symbol in front?  It is far more likely that this “error” was deliberate on the part of the JMPD and/or their contractors in order to scare people into going into their offices to query these things, rather than elect to be tried in court because the JMPD is now starting to haemorrhage money due to people wising up to the unlawfulness of the JMPD’s actions.  The RTIA should also not be making excuses for the JMPD if they are not prepared to compel them to obey the law and are going to allow them to appoint unqualified representation officers.

Additionally, a simple comment to the Beeld Newspaper stating that “motorists should not panic if they found themselves confronted with fines of, for example, R50,000 or R300,000” and a radio interview here and there is not good enough.  Of course people will panic!  It has taken almost two years for people to begin to wise up to the fact that sending AARTO 03 infringement notices by ordinary mail is contrary to the Act and a simple, small press article in one newspaper is simply not going to cut it.  The JMPD and RTIA should be forced to at the very least run full page adverts in all newspapers apologising to and reassuring motorists that this was an “error” if that is what it was.

The amount of affected parties – reportedly 50,000 in one batch is also cause for concern, given the fact that this would appear to represent a single month’s worth of representations rejected by the JMPD.  JPSA has also been told that people who are trying to hand in AARTO 10 election to be tried in court documents are being refused and told that they must pay “as these fines are not going to go away”.  If this is true, then the JMPD is violating people’s right under the Constitution to be tried in a competent court.

The JMPD is very good at making up excuses and pretending that they are blameless and a legitimate entity.  They seem to be under the impression that they can make up provisions as and when they wish to do so, and can discard the provisions of the AARTO Act to suit themselves.  From 1 June 2010 the JMPD began sending out infringement notices that they previously sent by registered mail in accordance with the Act by ordinary mail, thus negating the entire AARTO process.

The JMPD’s explanation for this has been that the AARTO Act does not specifically prohibit sending infringement notices by ordinary mail, however what they have neglected to note is that the Act says that they must be served by registered mail.  A complaint was lodged with the Public Protector by JPSA on 17 June 2011, after all other avenues to get the JMPD to act lawfully failed.  This has still not resulted in the resolution of this anomaly.

In December 2011, the JMPD suddenly contracted a large number of individuals to summarily reject representations and advise people to either pay the fines or elect to be tried in court.  We have been informed that elections to be tried in court are not being accepted by the JMPD and they are informing people that they have to pay the fines as a court will not listen to them.  This is a violation of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the right of every accused person to:

  • Be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court, and
  • Be subjected to administrative justice which is “administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair” which is most certainly not the case with respect to how the JMPD is acting as police, judge, jury and executioner.

The JMPD is clearly under the impression that they:

  • May presume that people they accuse are guilty until they prove themselves innocent, and
  • The JMPD is not obliged to comply with the prescripts of legislation passed into law in South Africa.

JPSA advises all motorists who make representations and have them rejected to immediately exercise their rights under the constitution and elect to be tried in a competent court, which don’t employ administration clerks who know nothing of the law to do their dirty work for them.  If the JMPD attempts to refuse you this right, then insist that they accept your election and do not take no for an answer.

Howard Dembovsky may be contacted for further comment.

Best Regards,

Howard Dembovsky

National Chairman - Justice Project South Africa (NPC)

Association Not For Gain  |  Incorporated as a non-profit company under the Companies Act, 2008  | Registration Number 2010/019972/08

Justice Project SA describes Sanral draft regulations on eTags as ridiculous

No Comments »Written on April 3rd, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Legal, Licensing, Q&A, Traffic Fines
Tags:

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa has responded with amazement to the fact that SANRAL has claimed in its media statement that the essence of the “South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act Regulations Draft” is not intended to compel motorists to buy eTags and register with SANRAL.  With the exception of the first paragraph, their release (below ours) reads like an advertisement for eTags and nothing more!

The core essence and purpose of the draft legislation, whilst not directly stating that motorists will actually be forced to have SANRAL’s modern-day, electronic dompas in their vehicles is quite clearly intended to provide for just that.

The draft legislation deals almost solely with the appointment of enforcement officers under section 54 of the SANRAL Act which wasn’t previously defined in the SANRAL Act and now seeks to legislate that “an employee in full or partial uniform” may “at any time enter any motor vehicle and inspect such vehicle and any electronic device installed therein for the purpose of toll collection.”

If indeed there is no requirement for motorists to have an electronic tag, then why would it be deemed necessary to write 3(1)(g) (amongst others) into this legislation?  Why also does the Department of Transport feel that it is necessary or justified to grant the SANRAL Gestapo-like powers which surpass those grated to real law enforcement agencies like the South African Police Services with respect to search and seizure of people’s vehicles and driving licences and other licensing documents?

So rushed was this draft legislation that the “(1)” part of 3(1)(g) was in fact left out in the document published for comment.  The legislation drafters were also quite clearly ignorant of the existence of two other little pieces of legislation – the Criminal Procedure Act and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa; which enshrines the right of every person not to have their person, home or property (which includes a motor vehicle) searched without warrant.

Had the Department of Transport and SANRAL have not adopted the arrogant attitude and grossly incompetent lack of attention to detail they have with respect to this entire eTolling debacle, they would not have had to rush to draft poorly thought out legislation or waste people’s time commenting, within very tight timelines, to draft legislation which violates the Constitution and therefore cannot constitutionally be passed into law by Parliament – unless of course, the Constitution is discarded and changed in its entirety as has been mooted recently, prior to enacting this atrociously ridiculous draft legislation.

Best Regards,

Howard Dembovsky

National Chairman - Justice Project South Africa (NPC)

Association Not For Gain  |  Incorporated as a non-profit company under the Companies Act, 2008  | Registration Number 2010/019972/08

Media Release from Sanral

Road users not obligated to buy an e-tag

The South African Roads National Agency SOC Limited (SANRAL) would like to clarify to road users that it is not compulsory for road users to buy an e-tag for Gauteng e-tolling. Registering with an e-tag is optional. Road users are therefore not forced to buy an e-tag but are encouraged to obtain one to enjoy the cost saving benefits available to e-tag users.

The registration procedure communicated by SANRAL and stipulated on the SANRAL website states that the road users can register for Gauteng e-tolling with a South African ID or passport number, physical and postal addresses, contact details (cell phone, landline, fax number and/or email address), account payment details (either cash or bank account or credit card details for those who choose the debit order option), vehicle licence plate number, and make and model of vehicle. Users are also not required to provide their banking details. There are many payment options including cash or electronic funds transfer (EFT) from which the user may choose to set up the e-toll account.

Having an e-tag linked to the e-toll account is an option that is chosen by the road user. The e-tag qualifies road users to the e-tag related discounts. These include the 48 percent e-tag discount and frequent user discounts that are available only to e-tag users. The e-toll tariffs have also been capped at R550 per month for motorcycles and light motor vehicles that are registered with an e-tag.

The e-tag also offers road users protection against licence plate cloning as the e-tag cannot be cloned. The e-tag is linked to one specific vehicle and can only be used with that vehicle.

How do we go about getting speed bumps and traffic calming measures installed?

No Comments »Written on March 29th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Legal, Q&A
Tags: , , ,

Earlier this week we shared via the Arrive Alive Facebook page a story titled "Bumps will not solve speed problems". We would like to quote from the first paragraph:

"Johannesburg Transport Member of the Mayoral Committee (MMC) Rehanna Moosajee said on Monday adding speed bumps to a Newlands street which has seen several people killed will not necessarily solve the problem."

Speed calming or traffic calming is an important tool for road safety authorities to reduce accidents caused by speeding motorists - especially in areas with large pedestrian movement.

So how do we go about getting speed calming devices installed in high risk areas?

This question has recently been raised via several emails addressed to the Arrive Alive website. We would like to share ons such email:

Example of request for traffic/ speed calming
"Dear Arrive Alive,

Looking at your www - I decided to pulse your organisation for guidance and of course assistance.

We live in the Southern Cape. I wrote a letter to the local authority Mossel Bay requesting traffic calming measures. This is the content of my letter:

BACKGROUND:

. To ignore our situation with persons exceeding speed regulations on our road Voorbrug Way any longer would be foolhardy.
. Our homes enter Voorbrug Way on blind corners and also from wooded properties.
. We have many narrow escapes with near collisions regularly.
. We live in rural areas where our lifestyle is one of calm. Drivers utilising the road ignore contemptuously the well signposted and clear road regulation limiting their speed to 40 KpH.
. We are convinced (know) that speeds breaking this regulation are hourly occurrences.
. The distance of road under review is 1.7 kms.
. We have children - and children remain children. We believe you'll identify with our fear of accidents involving not only our children but us the inhabitants, visiting guests and our "four legged" family.
. We have family pets killed on the road too frequently. Speed plays its role having caused quite unnecessary loss of life and heartache.
. Rural Great Brak River has wildlife - we witness too often buck species being killed by vehicles on our road.

REQUIREMENT:

The construction of traffic calming devices.

REQUEST:

Please may we meet with you and your staff at your earliest convenience?

. To have a site meeting.
. To determine whether the construction of traffic calming is feasible?

Please advise us soonest.

We look forward to hearing from you and hope this urgent and sincere appeal has a positive outcome.

================
I received a response which in my opinion is a standard letter addressed to persons/entities requesting traffic calming. It's my opinion they are "warning" me not to expect the response we as residents desire & it's my opinion the letter content is negative. Do you agree with their assertion as contained in the following response?

Quote:

Dear Mr. XYZ.

A meeting to discuss speed calming measures on site will serve no purpose. The placement of any obstruction on a public road is regulated by the National Roads Traffic Regulations 2000. Council accepted a policy with specific criteria to adhere to the Regulations. The criteria entails inter alia; The average number of vehicles using the road, the number of pedestrians crossing the road, the average speed of vehicles using the road, the number of serious motor vehicle accidents over the past five years which can be attributed to excessive speeding, the presence of public facilities like schools, churches, old age homes etc. and the gradient of the street. If a street does not meet the criteria it does not qualify for speed calming measures.
An investigation will be conducted to gather the information and a decision will then be taken based on the facts obtained.
Feedback will be given to you before 2012/03 30 .
Yours faithfully

Unquote

Is their response reasonable?

As I'm sure you have dealt with requests like this on many occasions - I am sure you have an expert to guide us and hopefully steer us in order we can be best served and of course ultimately succeed with that which we the residents desire.

We the rate payers want this where we live - not where anyone else lives or drives badly.

Lastly - people who don't reside here and have no respect for the law have more rights than us who do live here and desire to have the law upheld.

Thank you in anticipation.

Conclusion

We have also shared this with road safety specialists in Tshwane. These Requests for traffic calming measures in the City of Tshwane must be directed to:

The Director: Traffic Engineering and Operations
Roads and Stormwater Division
City of Tshwane
PO Box 1409
Pretoria
0001

Fax nr: 012 358 7731

The following information must be provided:

1. Street and area where problems are being experienced
2. Description of the problem
3. Time when problem is being experienced

It is clear from the above that the information required is well governed and that the concerned citizen has done all that is required to provide such information and now needs to wait for the analysis and findings promised by the Municipality.

Also view:

Traffic Calming, Speed Calming and Road Safety

SA Speedbumps

Expert provides assistance with the Motorcycle Handlebars Test Questions in the K53

No Comments »Written on March 26th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Aarto, Legal, Licensing, Q&A
Tags: , ,

On the 7th of March we made a post titled "Are Learner drivers asked Learner’s Licence test questions outside the Rules of the Road?" This dealt with questions asked at the Akasia test centre on the legal width of the handlebars on a motorbike.

We would like to share a response and some advice received from the K53 Expert Gavin Hoole:

The recent complaints about the learner’s licence test questions used at the Akasia testing centre refer. Here is a summary of the situation (or click here to skip down to an interim solution for candidates).

  • Akasia is asking questions about motorcycle handlebars specifications.
  • The items tested are not in accordance with the National Road Traffic Act which states that candidates must know and understand the Road Signs, Rules of the Road and the Controls of the Vehicle. These handlebars questions relate to a totally different section of the National Road Traffic Act. They can therefore be considered as illegal questions.
  • The matter has been brought to the attention of the Department of Transport who have said that there is no such question in the official test. The Department was again advised that several candidates have complained that those questions are indeed in the computerised tests conducted at the Akasia centre.
  • The matter has also been reported to Carté Blanche and to the Sunday Times.
  • At the time of writing this blog post, we are not aware that any action has been taken over this problem that is causing candidates to fail their learner’s licence test.

Interim Solution

An interim solution is offered on this website

While this matter is hopefully being attended to by the Department of Transport, people are still failing the test because of these questions (which seem so far to be isolated to the Akasia testing centre in Pretoria.

To help candidates pass these questions and obtain their motorcycle learner’s licence, the information – per the National Road Traffic Act’s Rules and Regulations No. R225 – is given on this website.

Click here for motorcycles handlebars specifications as well as other items that set out measurements and distances.

Were you asked such questions?

You can share your comments on these pages:

Complaints About Learner’s Licence Test Questions | K53

and

K53 Test Info Facebook Page


Also view:

History of the K53 Driver Test

« Older Entries

Categories

Popular Posts

Tag Cloud