What regulatory gaps allow buses with multiple summonses to operate?

Question

Accepted Answer

Buses with multiple summonses can still operate because enforcement is weak, penalties are not automatic, and repeat offenders are not removed from the road.

A bus driver with 18 traffic summonses, mostly for speeding, and a bus with 21 summonses were still in service. The wider problem is that vehicles with dozens of summonses, trucks with faulty brakes, and drivers with long misconduct records continue to operate despite the existence of JPJ, MIROS, APAD, demerit points, audits, and campaigns.
Enforcement is described as episodic rather than continuous

The regulatory gap is not a lack of agencies, but a lack of consistent action. The text says enforcement is "episodic" while road culture is "constant," which allows repeat violations to persist across commercial transport operations.

This means summonses can accumulate without stopping a vehicle from returning to the road. The same pattern is described across buses, lorries, and other commercial vehicles.
Summonses do not automatically stop a vehicle or driver

Vehicles with unpaid or numerous summonses are still operating, including buses and trucks. The text says that even reckless drivers with paper trails of misconduct still hold licences.

That shows a gap between detection and sanction. The system records violations, but the consequences do not appear to remove the vehicle from service or suspend the driver in a lasting way.
Repeat offenders are rotated instead of removed

The text says reckless drivers are not removed, they are rotated. Operators are fined, express shock, mourn the dead, and then continue operating, which suggests accountability is limited to short-term reaction.

This creates room for the same operators to keep functioning after serious incidents. The result is described as engineered neglect, especially among commercial operators.
Existing oversight bodies have not closed the gap

JPJ, MIROS, and APAD are named alongside policies, audits, demerit points, and "Ops" campaigns. Despite that framework, fatal crashes continue, including the May 13 incident near Teluk Intan that killed nine FRU officers and the June 11 crash that killed 15 students.

The issue is therefore not the absence of regulation on paper. The gap is that repeated summonses and mechanical or driver faults do not reliably prevent continued operation.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What regulatory gaps allow buses with multiple summonses to operate?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends