Retrofitting Rule Causing Confusion Even Within Jpj

---

 The government’s rush for improved road safety exposes some flaws and leaves everyone wondering how they can comply with the new regulations.
From David Ong

Serious road accidents like the UPSI bus crash have sent shockwaves throughout the nation, which undoubtedly creates pressure on transport minister Loke Siew Fook to strengthen policy and create counter-measures.
To his credit, the minister has done exactly that.
A number of actions have been taken since, including requiring seat belts in express and tour buses, and the introduction of speed limitation devices in buses and other commercial vehicles. These regulations will be enforced by the road transport department (JPJ).
However, what happens when a government is prompted to react quickly? Details are overlooked.
One detail has caught my eye and left industry players scratching their heads, namely the new JPJ buzzword: retrofitting.
For those unfamiliar, in the context of JPJ’s demands, retrofitting refers to the installation of a device that was not originally installed by the manufacturer.
This is a requirement set out by JPJ for vehicles that lack seat belts and speed limiters from the manufacturer.
That in itself should prompt any slightly mechanically inclined person to wonder: how does one retrofit a device on a vehicle that was not designed for the said device by the manufacturer?
The issue at hand is that old buses, despite popular belief, are generally not equipped with seat belts for passengers. The same goes for speed limiters for all older commercial vehicles.
Imagine a humble and inexpensive “Kei” truck (think your “kapcai” of trucks) used by noble farmers and labourers; why would those have speed limiters from the manufacturer?
Furthermore, what makes JPJ believe anyone has the knowledge to retrofit speed limiters to these vehicles?
These questions remain unanswered, though they have certainly been asked, and just as quickly shut down.
In a recent demonstration by Scania of how speed limiters functioned, both JPJ director-general Aedy Fadly Ramli and the minister inquired about the retrofitting of speed limiters.
Simply put, the responses by the demonstrators were of two types: one was that there are undoubtedly some vehicles unsuitable for retrofitting, and the other was, let’s not talk about that.
It sounds almost comedic that the top people in charge of implementing road safety regulations have to ask such crucial questions at an open demonstration and press conference like ordinary journalists.
There was clearly a lapse in thorough planning here. The confusion seems to also spread to the journalists, with most choosing to use the Scania diagnostic device as the cover photo for their own articles on the enforcement of speed limiter devices.
Industry players are still scrambling to figure out how to meet the enforcement deadline, given that there are no feasible solutions for the retrofitting of seat belts or speed limiters.
Unfortunately, the retrofitting will most likely be amateurish and rushed in nature. That is not to say retrofitting is unnecessary.
However, maybe it’s time JPJ reconsider its safety roadmap and enforcement action plan to be more realistic given our current capabilities.
Even our close neighbour Singapore needed years to trial and study retrofitting. - FMT
David Ong is an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---