LETTER | Commercial vehicles should be allowed to run if roadworthy

LETTER | Transport Minister Wee Ka Siong held a press conference after the 29th annual general meeting (AGM) of the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Bumiputera School Bus Operators Association held on Tuesday.

During the AGM, association president Amali Munif Rahmat proposed that the government extend the service lifespan of school buses from 32 to 35 years. In response, Wee said the Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (Miros) would need to conduct a study first.

The Land Public Transport Agency (APAD) would then present the study by MIROS to the Transport Ministry for a policy decision to be made. APAD issues commercial vehicle permits in Peninsular Malaysia, sets licensing conditions, and makes subsequent amendments.

Over the past decades, the lifespan of vehicles has been a perennial issue raised regularly by commercial vehicle operators. Must the same issue be addressed every few years? Can a methodology be found to provide a more lasting solution?

Basically, there are two main types of commercial vehicles, one for carrying goods and the other for passengers. Before the road tax of these commercial vehicles could be renewed, they must pass vehicle inspections at Puspakom.

The main test is roadworthiness and vehicle examiners must be satisfied that the vehicle could be operated safely on public roads. For passenger-carrying vehicles such as buses and taxis, the seating must be safe and comfortable, with adequate brightness and air-conditioning.

If the brakes of a five-year-old school bus are faulty and therefore not roadworthy, the vehicle should be barred from picking up passengers. But if a 32-year-old bus is found to be in near-perfect mechanical condition, there would be no problem if allowed to run a few more years.

In other words, it is not the age but the mechanical condition of the vehicle that matters more. If routine inspections for commercial vehicles are not mandatory, then we ought to use the vehicle’s age as the sole yardstick in determining its lifespan.

But Puspakom was set up in 1994 to take over vehicle inspections from the Road Transport Department (JPJ). Commercial vehicles that have passed inspections at Puspakom should be regarded as roadworthy by the Transport Ministry, or mandatory inspections be discontinued.

Puspakom must also be held accountable and not leave the quality of inspections entirely in the hands of vehicle examiners that generate test reports. Any suspicion that results could be manipulated must be removed. Its integrity and audit units should be active on the ground.

Generally, wear and tear are greater for older vehicles. While express buses clock high mileage, tour buses are idled most of the time. Hence, intervals for routine inspections should be tweaked.

For example, vehicles less than 10 years old need to be inspected only once every two years. For vehicles between 10-20 years old, once annually; 20-30 years old biannually; 30-35 years old quarterly; and 35-40 years old monthly. This would encourage operators to switch to newer vehicles while older vehicles running well are not relegated to the junkyard overnight.

The above is a simple and permanent solution on vehicle lifespan. And if we are genuinely concerned with the safety of our schoolchildren, JPJ enforcement officers should be sent to schools where drivers often operate school buses in a rush with little care for the passengers.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.