I read the article by Noel Grima “The Wardens: a huge cash cow fed on fines”. I had examined another aspect of the traffic warden system in my letter “Traffic fines and defaulters”, which appeared in The Sunday Times in February. Though I agree fully with Mr Grima that the whole system is a cash cow, the main atrocity is that the huge surveillance resources of the warden system are not being used as a means to educate road users, pedestrians included, for a safer road system and improved road manners. The fact that around a quarter of all fines involve “licence disc not appropriately affixed to windscreen” says a lot about it being a cash cow. This offence can be attributed to ignorance, inattention or a lapse of memory on the part of the owner, but it can hardly be a cause of reduced safety on the road.

I also agree that the system can be made to collapse if the cash is stopped. I disagree with the suggestion in Mr Grima’s article that offenders should withhold paying the fine as long as possible. First of all, some fines are fully justified and must be paid. The way of doing things is to persistently campaign to educate the motorist to become more aware of how to avoid getting fined, improving road safety and road manners in the process. With everybody driving by the book, fines diminish and the udders of the cash cow will dry up. The milkmaid will have an empty cash bucket!

The persistence of journalists should be directed also at obtaining statistics regarding the number of each type of infringement so that not only can interested parties examine changes in road user behaviour but also monitor whether the warden system is actually doing its job, that of improving traffic flow, traffic management and road safety.

There should also be the publication of cases contested and their outcome. For example, from personal experience and that of others, accidental damage to a vehicle, especially involving light clusters, often results in a fine. The law allows that a vehicle owner can still use the vehicle until arrangements for repair are carried out in reasonable time, as long as the damage poses no danger to other road users. I was fined over my vehicle while it was parked 10 metres away from my residence two weeks after the accident and two weeks before my appointment to take it in for repair. The high tech gadgets wardens carry could have easily checked that the vehicle was parked next to my home. I contested the fine, as a matter of principle, at the expense of wasted time and income. The commissioner accepted that it was humanly impossible to repair any damage instantaneously and with the evidence I presented I showed that repair was effected in a reasonable time.

In the above account, the warden issuing the ticket made a bad judgment and caused me financial losses. If the warden is not personally liable for my loss of earnings while contesting the fine, his employers are. This is because the employers offer a money-making service to local councils against payment and have not given adequate training to their employee so he/she can avoid issuing a fine where no infringement is present. In order to cut down on warden abuse of power, which is conceived on the notion that even innocent people will pay up rather than lose time and money, I propose that when a fine is contested and won by the accused, twice the amount of the fine be paid by the company providing the warden service to the accused. If the accused engages a lawyer, the latter’s fee will also be paid by the company.

Incidentally, in Msida last week, neither of the brake lights on warden vehicle JET 070 were working, the third light did work; none of the brake lights of JET 026 in Tal-Virtu were working and there was also a most unhealthy rattle coming from the vehicle’s engine.

Albert M. Bezzina

MOSTA