Minister Lall’s explanation is not clear

Sep 27, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In the exercise of his democratic right, Minister Lall has publicly explained his side of the story and defended himself in the media. There are two issues (i) whether the Minister failed to remain at the scene and whether he physically showed up at a police station or presented himself to a police within 24 hours of the incident. There is nothing in his letter confirming, denying or clarifying these particular issues.
Remaining at the scene means not momentarily but remaining for the time required to 1) report the accident (which the Minister was capable of doing on his cell phone or asking passersby to do so) 2) render assistance if injury is caused 3) provide information and particulars to both the other parties and the police and 4) to reasonably remain until the police arrives.
Reporting the accident legally requires one to present himself to the police within the time period required by the law. Failure to do so should result in an automatic charge. No ands, ifs and buts about it. The Minister claimed he stopped after the accident, so why not, as a Minister setting an example, remain at the scene until the arrival of the police?
Although I am tempted to not engage in any analysis of fault in this matter the Minister’s letter forces my hand. It must be exposed.
Firstly, it is clear that Mr. July’s injuries could only have occurred as a result of the collision or the avoidance of a collision between the Minister’s vehicle and the motorcycle.
The Minister admits to this collision in his letter. It does not matter that Mr. July did not physically hit the Minister’s vehicle. Secondly, the Minister’s admits his lane of travel (Minister was going east) was blocked as the bridge’s eastbound lane was closed. Thus, it appears that the Minister did not have the right of way by law and that the motorcyclist had the right of way.
The Minister is required by law to yield to in this situation to oncoming traffic in the westbound lane and to ensure the way is clear before proceeding. These actions require reasonable caution, prudence and judgment and ensuring there is sufficient time, space and opportunity before invading the oncoming lane of traffic so as not to pose a hazard to vehicles with the right of way. Third, the Minister stated that the accident occurred some eight feet from the eastern end of the bridge and he had practically cleared the bridge when the accident occurred. That does not discharge fault on the part of the Minister. Actually, the mere fact that the accident occurred on the bridge strongly suggests that the Minister did not properly yield and proceeded into the oncoming right of way westbound lane unsafely. Fourth, the Minister admits that “I was driving a fairly large vehicle, there was insufficient space (about two feet) left for the motorcycle to pass me going in the opposite direction.” The Minister knew his vehicle was large and that it severely diminished the space available to the road users with the right of way in the situation. This requires him to exercise even greater caution before invading the oncoming right of way lane.
Fifth, the Minister’s letter confirms excellent visibility from the streetlights and from his lights which he claims were on and were bright. Further, the motorcycle lights were working at the time. With virtually unhindered visibility, there was absolutely no way the Minister as a yielding driver could not have seen the approaching motorcycle and could not have exercised proper caution.
Sixth, the Minister did not admit to any impairment in his letter. So if his faculties were intact when he failed to yield and to proceed into the oncoming lane of traffic, the implication of fault against him is reinforced. Seventh, on the issue of caution and prudence in yielding the Minister actually confirmed in his letter as follows in referring to the bridge, “The northern side was cordoned off with large signs urging road users to be cautious.” Enough said. Eight, the Police stated that the motorcycle driver appeared to be at fault based on (1) his statement that he hit the metal rail and then hit the Minister’s vehicle and (2) measurements at the scene.
I will not launch into the degenerate ignorance and plain foolishness of this statement but the Police Force and its Commissioner need to look at the Minister’s admission at Point 5 in his letter where he unequivocally stated “there was insufficient space (about two feet) left for the motorcycle to pass me going in the opposite direction.” Anyone with a functioning brain would conclude that if a motorcyclist with the right of way has his right of way breached by a large vehicle he will naturally swerve into any available space even if such space is too small. It is logically unequivocal that in this scenario the motorcycle must contact the rail and the Minister’s vehicle.
The conduct of the police in this matter raises serious concerns. The conclusion of the police force of no fault on the part of the Minister is downright atrocious.
The question remains whether the Minister broke the law in failing to remain at the scene and failing to report the accident. Why wasn’t the Minister charged with an offence akin to careless driving, reckless driving, and failing to yield, etc, based on the publicly presented facts in his letter to the public?
The ball is in the court of the Minister and the GPF. It is time they start producing evidence and answering questions. It is that simple. No semantics required. No sophistry.
No spin-doctoring. Based on the facts presented by the Minister in his letter, this cannot ever be a case of zero fault on the part of the Minister. All of the factors the Minister reported significantly reinforce liability against the Minister. Will the Guyana Police Force and its Commissioner Mr. Henry Greene now revisit this matter?
M. Maxwell

---

---