Aarto

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

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

Should driver behaviour tracking be used as evidence in marital disputes?

No Comments »Written on March 20th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Aarto, Legal, Q&A, Traffic Fines
Tags: , ,

Quite often the Arrive Alive website receives some rather interesting requests for assistance. Last week the Arrive Alive website received a phone call from a frustrated vehicle owner who requested our assistance in strong action against someone who transports his children and who, according to the vehicle tracking data, appears to have exceeded the speed limit and driven dangerously. Only during the conversation it became apparent that this person is his wife!

Having gained his permission I would like to share the email:

Email received:

As per our conversation of earlier please find the tracking report attached.

I must point out a few things.

1. The car is registered in my name and I make the payments.
2. I also make the payments for the insurance and tracking and the insurance is in my name. ( i.e. the tracking and my possession of it is legal)
3. I am the banks legal caretaker in respect of protecting their/my asset.
4. I am also The father of the Children that are transported in this car to and from school and have a moral and legal responsibility to protect them at all costs.
5. My wife is full aware of the tacker in the car yet continues to wilfully place her life, my children life and other road users life in danger.

The report is very detailed and I am very sure if you go through the report you will find many examples of speeding in lower rated areas (60/80/100) but for the purposes of simplicity I am focusing on the speed violations of over 130km an hour which there are many examples of.

I am not going to highlight all of them but one particular one I would like to bring to your attention is the following.

Sunday the 26th February 2012. Travelling on the N17 to take my children to a birthday party in Edenvale (travelling from Boksburg) my wife’s decides to travel 132 and 141 km/h with my kids in the car.

Sorry but this is unacceptable. How must I idly sit by and watch my wife put my children’s life in danger? What kind of a father would I be?

I am not sure how to do this legally but I need to protect my children IMMEDIATELY. Please help.

I need 1 or more of the following to happen immediately.

1. She be charged with repeated reckless and negligent driving.
2. She be charged with wilfully and repeatedly endangering the lives of my children.
3. She immediately legally be prevented from transporting my children ANYWHERE.
4. Her license possibly suspended/revoked.

Please advise what is the next steps urgently please. This cannot continue for a day longer.

Many thanks. I look forward to your response

Response and feedback from the Experts

I decided to share the email with the experts on road traffic legislation and traffic enforcement   - Alta Swanepoel and Howard Dembovsky, and would like to share their responses:

Road Traffic Legislation Expert Alta Swanepoel:

The speeds in question are not sufficiently high to warrant a charge of reckless driving. You only really succeed with those types of charges at speeds of higher than 160 km/h if you have no other evidence like an accident or dangerous driving, etc.

The tracker’s info may also not be used for a speeding charge as it does not conform to the speed prosecution guidelines.

A person’s driving licence is also normally only suspended once they exceed the speed limit by 30 km/h in town and 40 km/h out of town and these speeds were not close to that.

I assume the two examples he quoted happened on the freeway with a speed limit of 120 km/h.

You only get prosecuted from 131 km/h so I definitely do not see reckless driving charges.

One will have to investigate possible traffic fines, if she made accidents in the past, etc. if he wants to argue she is not suitable to hold a licence and would then need to request the MEC to have her retested.

I do not see sufficient evidence from what he said to substantiate further action.

Regards

Alta

Alta Swanepoel and Associates

Traffic Enforcement Specialist Howard Dembovsky

I can only fully endorse what Alta has said with respect to what the traffic legal matters surrounding this issue and it would appear that the gentleman is trying to use the criminal justice system as well as the driver licensing system to address his marital problems.  He will not succeed with this as his interpretation of the law is sorely skewed by what appears to be a deep resentment of his wife. I further add that it would appear that he wants someone else to fight his battles/address his problems instead of pursuing a number of obvious remedies open to him.  Here are just a few of those remedies:

  1. If he feels so strongly about how his wife is driving HIS car, registered in HIS name, then all he need do is remove the privilege of driving that vehicle from his wife.
    1. This involves the simple act of taking the keys away.
    2. He could sell the car if he wishes to make it final.
    3. He will have to make arrangements to ferry his children around – something that he could easily do himself right now without even withdrawing the use of the use of the vehicle from his wife or trying to get her prosecuted.
    4. I would suggest that this matter looks more like one that need be dealt with by a marriage counsellor and that this should be done urgently. That is if he is still married to her, which he has not stated.
    5. If he is still married to her and a marriage counsellor doesn’t work, then there are always divorce attorneys and suing for custody based on his feelings of recklessness – which a court will take into consideration and then decide on.

The most important thing here is that people must refrain from abusing the criminal justice system to get spiteful against others and/or to do their dirty work for them. Civil law provides remedies for this kind of situation and if he wants things done “IMMEDIATELY” then he will have to instruct an attorney or advocate to bring an urgent application before the court.

Best Regards,

Howard Dembovsky

National Chairman - Justice Project South Africa (NPC)

Conclusion

It should be clear from the above that the data collected from vehicle telematics devices should not be used to perform traffic enforcement duties - and definitely not to settle marital disputes. This might however be a weapon in the arsenal of the divorce attorney when it comes to a dispute with regards to custody of children etc. For this we will seek advice and refer to well-known divorce attorney Bertus Preller!

Also view:

Insurance Telematics and Road Safety

Lessons from Formula 1 to benefit Car Insurance

Can Insurance Telematics fill the missing link for effective traffic enforcement?

Will Insurance Telematics settle the eternal debate of who is the best driver?

Must I do my drivers licence where I live?

No Comments »Written on March 19th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Aarto, Legal, Licensing, Q&A
Tags: , ,

Question:

I have my learners and am now looking to do my licence. I did my learners in the Northwest but live in Johannesburg.

A friend told me that I can only do my drivers in JHB as I reside in JHB.

Is this true because I am trying to avoid the really long lines in JHB or can Ii do my learners in Klerksdorp or anywhere else for that matter?

Answer:

There are no domicilium rules for a learner or driving licence.

A person can apply for a driving licence anywhere in the country.

Hopeful that the response given satisfies the question asked.

With eye testing what are the fields of vision acceptable to get a drivers licence in SA?

No Comments »Written on March 14th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Aarto, Legal, Licensing, Q&A
Tags: , ,

Question:

Please can you let me know the fields of vision (? degrees) acceptable to get a drivers licence in SA?

Answer:

Defective vision disqualifying person from obtaining or holding licence

Reg 102. (1) A person shall be disqualified from obtaining or holding a learner’s or driving licence unless—
(a) in the case of an application for a learner’s or driving licence relating to the codes A1, A, B or EB, such person has—

(i) according to the Snellen rating a minimum visual acuity, with or without refractive correction, of 6/12 (20/40) for each eye, or where the visual acuity of one eye is less than 6/12 (20/40) or where one eye of the person concerned is blind, a minimum visual acuity for the other eye of 6/9 (20/30); and
(ii) a minimum visual field of 70 degrees temporal, with or without refractive correction, in respect of each eye, or where the minimum visual field in respect of one eye is less than 70 degrees temporal, or where one eye is blind, a minimum total horizontal visual field of at least 115 degrees with or without refractive correction; or
(b) in the case of an application for a learner’s or driving licence relating to the codes C1, C, EC1 and EC, such person has—
(i) according to the Snellen rating a minimum visual acuity, with or without refractive correction, of 6/9 (20/30) for each eye; and
(ii) a minimum visual field of 70 degrees temporal in respect of each eye, with or without refractive correction.
(2) (a) A person who is disqualified in terms of subregulation (1) may at such person’s expense approach a registered optometrist or ophthalmologist to test such person’s eyes in terms of the standards referred to in subregulation (1), and the result of such test shall, if it duly reflects the visual acuity of such person according to the Snellen rating, and his or her field of vision expressed in degrees, as contemplated in subregulation (1), be accepted by the driving licence testing centre.
(b) If the result contemplated in paragraph (a) indicates that the person concerned is disqualified as contemplated in subregulation (1), the driving licence testing centre shall not issue such person with a learner’s or driving licence with a code to which the application of that person relates.

Road Safety and the Importance of Clear Vision

Also see:

Are Learner drivers asked Learner’s Licence test questions outside the Rules of the Road?

1 Comment »Written on March 7th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Aarto, Legal
Tags: , , ,

Earlier today the Arrive Alive website received the following email:

Good morning.

I wrote my learners yesterday at Akasia on the new electronic learners system. I need some clarity on some of the questions asked.

1. These questions does not appear in any of the K53 learners manuals.

2. Is it leagal to ask questions that are not in any manuals.

The questions were.

1. If you drive a motorcycle of 900cc what is the maximum height that the handle bars may be above the seat.

2. If you drive a motorcycle of 125cc what is the maximum width that the handle bars may be.

3. Where must a silencer of a motor vehicle be?

I do understand that these questions is very important but would like to know where they are taken from in order to study the material for the re test.

We referred this to the specialist on the K53 Gavin Hoole who confirmed that this is unfortunately not a separate incident. We would like to quote from his website:

Complaints About Learner’s Licence Test Questions | K53

There are some complaints doing the rounds regarding Learner’s Licence test questions related to items that are not in the South African Rules of the Road but that seem to have crept into some test papers — according to people who have written the test.

In co-operation with other professional bodies and individuals involved with learner driver teaching and training, we would like to get to the bottom of these complaints. Any help from any party, including test candidates, would be much appreciated.

To kick this off, here is one such complaint. If you have had such a question, please comment as suggested lower down.

Motorcycle specifications questions

A test candidate says he was asked about the handlebars:

height above seat, and
width from grip to grip
and also about the limitations for a 900 cc and 125 cc motorcycle in three separate questions. (He did not specify exactly what the questions were.)

Department of Transport response

“…there is no such question in the learner’s licence test.” [about handlebars]

So, what are the real facts? Who is not speaking accurately? We’ve also heard that this complaint has been voiced to other professional people in the driving licence industry. Is this candidate getting his facts wrong? Has one of the testing stations deviated from the official test?

This candidate did the test at the Akasia testing centre. It was the electronic version of the exam (touch-screen computers).

Other complaints have been about trucks

The same candidate queried a question regarding a cargo extending beyond the rear axle:

Various study materials, he says, state 900 mm; the exam asked 850, 950, and 1050 mm.
Truck and trailer:
Where the reflector tape on the trailer is meant to be – i.e. the sides and rear of the trailer.
Were other reflectors must be.

Comments welcome!

Please leave a comment with as much information as possible about the motorcycle questions mentioned above, and/or any other unexpected questions, including the truck questions mentioned here. e.g.

when you took the test
which testing station
whether touch-screen computer testing, or pencil and paper
any other information you remember, such as the question number

Where to comment

Some options:

Submit a comment right here, on this blog.
Submit it also at the K53 Test Info Facebook Page (be sure to click on the ‘Like’ link at the top of the Facebook page too).

A new approach to the training of Traffic Officers

44 commentsWritten on February 29th, 2012 by jonckie
Categories: Aarto, Legal, Q&A, Traffic Fines
Tags: , ,

In 2011 the first 244 Traffic Officers were trained in a one year full qualification which is registered with the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA). The qualification, Further Education and Training Certificate (FETC): Road Traffic Law Enforcement ID 62289 was registered on the National Qualifications Framework - Level 4 with 142 credits and is now the minimum standard for the training of Traffic Officers.  This qualification lies within the primary focus area of the Safety and Security Sector Education and Training Authority (SASSETA).

Currently there are thirteen Traffic Training Colleges that have been approved by the Minister of Transport in terms of the National Road Traffic Act (NRTA). These thirteen Colleges are the only Colleges that can train a person to qualify, be registered and be employable as a Traffic Officer in South Africa. It must be emphasized that any person who wishes to be employed as a Traffic Officer must be trained for one year at an approved Traffic Training College as from January 2011. The training will include both theoretical and practical training. The approved Traffic Training Colleges are listed below:

NAME CITY/ PROVINCE CONTACT NR.
1.   Limpopo Traffic Training College Polokwane - Limpopo (015) 967 0467
2.  Boekenhoutkloof Traffic Training              College Pretoria - Gauteng (012) 372 8000
3.   KZN Traffic Training College Pietermaritzburg – KZN (033) 394 0202
4.   Lengau Traffic Training College Bloemfontein - Free State (051) 409 0444
5.   Mangaung Traffic Training College Bloemfontein – Free State (051) 412 8100
6.   Gene Louw Traffic Training College Cape Town  – Western Cape (021) 983 1501
7.   Durban Metro Police Department Academy Durban – KZN (031) 701 0462
8.   Johannesburg Metro Police Department Academy Johannesburg - Gauteng (011) 429 5010
9.   Tshwane Metro Police Department Academy Pretoria – Gauteng (012) 358 0005
10.  Ekurhuleni Metro Police Department Academy Springs – Gauteng (011) 812 8700
11.  Port Elizabeth Traffic Training College Port Elizabeth – Eastern Cape (041) 390 4501
12.  Matjhabeng Traffic Training College Welkom – Free State (051) 876 2224
13. Cape Town Metro Police Deapartment Academy Cape Town  – Western Cape (021) 447 2366

The public should note that there are numerous training providers who claim that they can train Traffic Officers and issue certificates with which a person can be registered and be employed as Traffic Officers. Only the relevant certificates obtained from the above mentioned 13 Colleges can currently be used to register a Traffic Officer in terms of the National Road Traffic Act (NRTA). Prospective learners at these 13 Colleges must also be aware that the Local or Provincial Authorities normally pay the training fees directly to the College electronically. Learners must take caution and not pay any individual to secure “a space” at a Traffic Training College. Applicants are advised to ensure that the Colleges that they use for the Basic Traffic Officer’s Course are fully registered, accredited and approved in terms of the NRTA.

For further Information: Ashref Ismail – 071 680 3448

« Older Entries

Categories

Popular Posts

Tag Cloud