The implementation of the new rear seat safety belt ruling should be lauded as an additional safety measures for the rear passengers. This step would reduce road fatalities further.

But what is most puzzling is the selective and discriminative implementation of this new requirement whereby certain vehicles are exempted.

The main criterion for the rear seatbelt requirement is that it is for the safety of rear seat passengers and this was emphatically stressed by the director-general of JPJ himself: ‘Belt up for your own safety’. He is right in saying so but why the certain exemptions?

A few possible conclusions can be deduced from this selective safety ruling:

• The passengers of these exempted categories – public service vehicles, certain commercial vehicles, MPVs and old cars are accident-proof – accidents will not happen to those driving these vehicles.

• Passengers using these vehicles are not worth saving.

The flimsy reason of not having anchors for rear seatbelts in these exempted categories of vehicles is simply not acceptable. Old cars, if not properly and adequately maintained, are more accident -prone than newer vehicles – hence the need for rear seatbelts is more critical.

If the safety of rear seat passengers is truly the main reason for the new requirement, then it should be implemented across the board on all roadworthy vehicles.

Everyone on the road is equally important and should be equally protected as all are equally prone to accidents. Budget airlines have seat belts on all seats in all classes.

If the main reason for this exemption for old cars is cost, then these vehicles should also be allowed to move around with bald tyres.

By implementing this discriminative ruling, JPJ is actually not having the people’s safety at heart. It is, in fact, telling taxi and bus passengers to travel ‘at your own risk’, similar to signages at parking lots.

How can one justify this selective application of a safety requirement? Accidents do not select victims, accidents do not exempt passengers in old cars, MPVs or public vehicles and accidents are equally nasty and disastrous if they involve old cars and commercial vehicles. Hence, costs should not be an overriding factor when safety is the main concern.

We are always boasting of being very advanced and up-to-date and we always pit ourselves against the advanced nations.

We have sent someone to outer space; we have very advanced technology in certain specific areas and yet when we implement a simple road safety regulation, we implement it based on a Third World mentality.

Can an injured rear seat passenger using a vehicle in one of the exempted categories take up a case in court should an accident occur? This is something worth serious consideration.