FRSC and the new number plates saga; a GOOD BAD law?

It is said that “A GOOD act is not necessarily the RIGHT act".

That saying came back to mind again as I watched the FRSC try to defend its GOOD BAD law.

The FRSC Act 2007 (section 10 sub-sections 3d and 3f) mandates the Corps to design, implement and produce items of the uniform Licensing Scheme like Number Plate, Driver’s License and their components.

Journey with me as we take a peek into the NEW VEHICLE PLATES, and its features.

1.    COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

The new Vehicle plate numbers and drivers license for one will conform to international safety standards as regards such documents,  standards and protocols such as the Geneva convention and the Accra declaration amongst others come to the fore here. Such standards are not just limited to physical features but also acquisition and regulatory policies.

2.    SECURITY FEATURES

As opposed to earlier versions of these safety documents, security is going to be slightly enhanced and actually represent a major move to a highly structured road safety database.

This will help Nigerians achieve the Accra declaration of making Nigerians one of the safest nations by 2020 and the reduction by up to 50% of road fatalities by 2015 (Really?).

The Markings on the plate number will control forgery, the numbering plan also will make it easier for Data base querying and data manipulation all aimed at security enhancement. The plate number is tied to each driver’s license such that from sighting a license plate you can actually track the owner of the vehicle, date of licensing, location of licensing, third party sales and the whole works (Wonderful! Isn’t it?).

Car theft recoveries will be supported and enhanced.

3.    REVENUE ASSURANCE AND GENERATION

It is funny how the FRSC and all proponents failed to really harp on this aspect (I get it though).

Of course the country will make more money (Obvious Isn’t it) since there is an upward review of prices. However apart from making more money from the Country for the Country (I like that, I laugh out loud) the new scheme will also reduce and curb wastage as well as revenue leakages due to sharp practices of some cabals within the system.

All lofty ideals and Ideas, isn’t it? However permit me to take a look into the other side, that side that represents the view of most, the masses and the large population of those who don’t support the law.

1.      The agency and its proponents say the Plates and licenses are now a security document and also a deadline of twelve months for moving over to the new platform. As good as that is, the audience needs serious re-orientation as to the above advantages and even more.

CHALLENGES

The average Nigerian distrusts its Government and all form of representation of Governmental authority. They do have valid reasons to distrust though, when you have a Government that “doesn’t do what it says” either due to genuine reasons or not.

2.      The Country just came out of a Fuel subsidy removal crises and it’s after effect of another GOOD BAD policy.

CHALLENGES

The timing of the policy under review reeks of insensitivity and the seeming un-holistic view of Government on its countries issues and the prioritization of real issues facing real people. The cost of supporting the SURE program on the people is still being felt, even though we are yet to see the dividends of the ‘it-seems-like-the Government-abandoned- the SURE program’ under the claim that the subsidy removal was not a full one.

3.      The policy may as well just not achieve anything not because the Government and its agency do not have good plans, but just because proposing something is one aspect and implementing it is another.

CHALLENGES

Unless the Agency has air tight processes and professionals manning the system it is bound to be compromised again, especially in a tripartite arrangement. Another aspect is the REVENUE angle in which it seems the monies will be accrued to the state as it is a joint venture of sort. That may be a GOOD thing but is it the RIGHT thing? Is it constitutional according to all relevant laws?

Another thing is the SECURITY angle; can this processes and features really assure security? Or is it just another Information Technology stunt.

Also I will keep mapping and reviewing the FRSC’s primary assignment to all its policies already and that will be proposed in future. Can the FRSC really align and realize a positive IMPACT of this policy to the reduction of RTA’S (Road traffic accidents) and the achievement of the Accra declaration?

Am I to trust the Government whose policy ventures have not really impacted the people positively?

Should I go on without preferring solutions? Of course not.

PALLIATIVES/SOLUTIONS

1.      The Government should endeavor to always carry its people along. Some would however argue this based on the fact that in all systems in order to be able to deploy solutions timely and effectively a few people must decide for the majority, and this will be our REPS as well as SENATORS. However a more robust and wide consultation is still needed (civil groups, stakeholders like NURTW etc) and this also reflects a disconnect between what the people really want and what their representatives out there propose. The PRODUCT will always REFLECT the process.

2.      An efficient process or project should always reflect an attribute of Cost effectiveness. This is even more pronounced in a Government process/project. The FRSC or any other Government concerned with the SAFETY of people and lives amongst others should live up to the ideology of Government that says “ its sole responsibility is the protection of the people”(not only in terms of properties and lives, but also in terms of pocket friendly policies).

Besides if the FRSC is not a revenue generating arm of Government per- se, then the cost of switching over (upgrading) should be free and then moving forward you can charge a stipend for renewal.

3.      We need to begin to practice real program/project management in this Country. There should always be as part of the process, a REVIEW period where all policies and its impact be scrutinized and if we find out that it is not performing as planned, instead of a continuous utilization of Tax payers hard-earned money to fund such a colossal waste, the process be revamped and the Tax payers money better utilized towards creating better results. I am yet to see any project or policy review by FRSC on any of its policies.

This will prove to the people that they have people who are without wax at the helms of affairs and that the Government is really for the people.

4.      Lastly I would want to advise the Government to do a VSM (Value Stream mapping) of its agencies and eliminate wastage as well as identify opportunities in all policies or projects carried out.

What am I driving at? In terms of creating a source data and the beginning of a truly national database the Government needs to maximize opportunities at all instances. One example of that is the Election process as well as any other data-capture events. That process could have eliminated a lot of waste in terms of future events, source data that the FRSC could tap into and as such drive down the overall cost of their own process.

Also the Government actually needs to begin a process of all data capture types in the country and then merge them all into a common platform. What I am saying is the FRSC as a Government agency generates what sort of data type? The answer is TRAFFIC / ROAD USERS, the HOSPITALS generate what sort of data? The answer obviously is also HEALTH RECORDS including BIRTHS and DEATHS.

Now imagine if we have a central platform where the FRSC data is integrated with the HOSPITAL data. What do you think will happen?

A ROBUST DATABASE will begin to form and at the end of the day we will have such a database that will be so robust as to be able to tie your driving habits to your health records, to your demography, everything that is reasonable. This is not without its challenges however it can be done with the right PEOPLE in control.

I rest my case peeps.

The RTSSS (Road Transport Safety Standardization Scheme); So far, So?

In 2007 the Federal Road Safety Corps initiated and kicked off a policy, the Road Transport Safety Standardization Scheme (RTSSS).

According to Section 115(1) and (2) of the National Road Traffic Regulation, mandates all transport operators who engage in inter-state road transport with up to 5 vehicles in their fleet, to appoint a Safety Officer and also to comply with the FRSC requirements on certification, registration and safety officers to build a data bank for ease of monitoring and to ensure better and safer road usage.

The charter of the scheme includes:

A. Regulate Road Transportation in Nigeria.

B. Ensure Safe and Standardized Fleet Transport Operation for all.

 
C. Check the excesses of Transport Operators which often lead to loss of lives and property.

 
D. Entrench a culture of safety consciousness in organizations and companies with vehicular fleet.
This policy, to me represents one of the best policies I have seen coming from the stables of the FRSC, it is filled with potential and pregnant with possibilities, an attempt by a regulatory body to organize the ever-chaotic transport sector and its sub-sectors. The policy has actually made head-ways especially in the area of compliance to registration, albeit in the organized transport sector since 2010 when the full implementation began and so far they have:

1. 2325 Fleet operators have been registered so far

2. 338 Safety Managers have been trained and many more to follow.

ADVANTAGES

1. Fleet operators are now also involved in investigating accidents and gathering data, thus data becomes robust and integrity of data will be actualized.

2. The FRSC will be able to delve into better research based on reliable and different data sources.

3. It becomes easier to monitor safety on our highways.

4. We begin to get source-data for a transport database.

Etc.

However, policies are not just made for the sake of making it, they are made to address a certain challenge, resolve a certain problem.

"What is not measured cannot be changed"

My Question is:

How has the policy affected the greatest index it was promulgated to address?; The rate of traffic incidents.

The last traffic accident statistic uploaded on the FRSC site stopped at 2006 (why that is so, I cannot fathom) and as such I will refrain from quoting figures in this post.

The FRSC needs to sit down at this point and analyze the policy in order to better realize the objectives of setting up the policy.

1. How has the policy affected RTA (Road traffic accidents)?

2. Is the issue that of compliance?

3. Does the statistics shows that the fleet operators have a lower RTA rate compared to individuals who are not regulated by the charter (as they may not necessarily have up to five vehicles)?

4.Is the policy capable of single handedly reducing RTA rate, or it has to work in conjunction with other initiatives?. If so what other initiatives are prime to the success of the policy?

5. If the issue is compliance, what strategy is been used to enforce and or ensure compliance.
So many questions to be asked, but permit me analyze the policy and the challenges which I feel it faces.

1. COMPLIANCE

The FRSC may need to re-define terminologies, what represents a fleet operator? where do you categorize the numerous vehicles under NURTW and their owners who do not see themselves as a fleet operator because

a. they chose to do so
b. they do not have up to five vehicles.

Does it mean the owner of a vehicle of four (4) under the umbrella (or any other umbrella) of NURTW does not ply the roads or does not contribute to RTA within the highways? these area has to be addressed if the policy is going to have any meaningful effect on RTA reduction, as it were now the policy may not deliver as regards the RTA index.

2. ENFORCEMENT

I am of the school of thought (as written in my first post: RTA root cause analysis) that punitive measures in terms of financial fines may be counterproductive in the long run as people may develop immunities to payment of fines.

The FRSC needs to come up with a strategy that motivates and at the same time punitive, to the extent that the defaulter feels it, take for example if a DANGOTE vehicle defaults and a PEACE MASS TRANSIT defaults, the imposition of the same amount of fine, is relative and DANGOTE may not necessarily feel it as compared to the smaller operator.

In Advanced countries, the fear of safety enforcement is the beginning of wisdom.

3. MEASUREMENT AND PERFORMANCE

The FRSC needs to measure the policy impact on a regular basis using clearly defined metrics.

The FRSC is one commission that is filled with potential, but the leadership needs to do more, promulgating policies that are truly scientific.