During the Easter weekend, my family, like many others, migrated to the Zulu Kingdom – well, partially, at least. Our intention was not to reach the coast but to go to one of the best-kept secrets in the Nambiti Game Reserve, the Umzolozolo Safari Lodge. Our recurring visits are exclusively the result of the hospitality of Debbie and Dave Peckham and their amazing staff, who make this quaint lodge a home away from home. En route, we make our way down the Van Reenen Pass, having briefly stopped at the top of the pass to visit the smallest Roman Catholic church in the world. At the bottom of the pass, we deviate to the Tugela East Ramp.

Our migration is reminiscent of the great Serengeti wildebeest migration, the largest terrestrial mammal migration in the world, which is considered one of the seven natural wonders of Africa and one of the ten natural travel wonders of the world. This is quite fitting since, on May 16, 1907, by Royal Warrant, King Edward VII granted Natal, a British colony at the time, its coat of arms with two wildebeest. After Natal became one of the four provinces of the Union of South Africa on May 31, 1910, the provincial administration took over the arms, which continued to serve as the provincial arms until April 27, 1994, when Natal was reconstituted as KwaZulu-Natal, one of South Africa’s nine provinces.

Oh, how I would have loved to have had an elevated view of our journey in the seemingly endless stream of traffic, which, no doubt, resembled a ginormous snake slithering over the mountainous terrain of the majestic Zulu Kingdom. Of all my annual migrations to the coast, this year’s was by far the busiest, with the fuel stops and truck stops well exceeding their capacity. For a brief moment, one would have been forgiven for thinking that South Africa’s economic woes were the figment of many an economist’s imagination. It seems that domestic tourism is a recessionproof industry, but the extremes to which its clients need to go to afford it is, surely, a matter of concern.

As one would expect, nothing on the road goes without incident or accident. Fortunately, there is nothing life depriving, but it is not for trying. There are some close shaves, even closer than Gillette would profess to provide you in the morning. I simply cannot understand why road users would place their lives and those of others at risk simply to gain a mere minute or two. Why? My father used to say that much can be learned about a country by simply observing the way its road users conduct themselves.

As with most things in South Africa today, the rules of the road seem to be open to interpretation – at best, they serve as a mere guideline. When one is caught, is it not acceptable to merely apologise – saying sorry – or to deny any wrongdoing or any knowledge of wrongdoing? Some road users have been known to offer financial incentive for the matter to be settled. The rules of the road are seemingly discretionary. What happened to ‘keep left, pass right’? And pedestrians on the freeway – highway – seem to be permitted, as they are now a regular sight. Also, buses of all sorts and description now collect passengers on the side of the highway. Long forgotten is the ‘highway cry way’ road safety campaign.

Owing to the family’s democratic consensus, I am behind the wheel, with my sole companion the radio, as my passengers drift in and out of consciousness, nodding off. But not all is lost – as a result of automotive technological advances, I am able to alleviate the pressure on my right foot by employing cruise control.

As wildebeest migrate across the wide open plains, they attract predators – the same is true on the road. I started to notice various forms of entrapment, politically known as road law enforcement. There are static cameras, cameras that measure average speed (yes, they measure average speed, yet there are those intellectual road users that slam their breaks just before such cameras; somehow, the concept of average evades them). Then there are mobile cameras – those ‘strategically’ positioned by law enforcement officers hiding behind scrubs and bushes, and then normally on the steep descending parts of the road. Surely, hiding behind scrubs and bushes does not qualify as law enforcement, but is an activity purely for financial gain.

Then there are the tolls roads – e-tolls. I am still astounded at the 60% discount on money owed to the South African National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral), an amnesty that expires on May 2. What about those who have paid – what will happen to their 60% discount? Talk about incentivising tax noncompliance, which I covered extensively in the column of August 14, 2015, titled ‘Is incentivising tax noncompliance taking its toll?’

Since this tax compliance provides no financial benefit, why do those who would have paid, and continue to pay, their dues at least not qualify for dedicated e-tag lanes at toll booths? Yes, there are lanes, but these are multiuse/multipurpose lanes, which, if anything, allow those without e-tags to delay the flow of traffic as they have to pay cash. Sanral has much to learn about client service.

As I was driving, I pondered the similarities between road tolls/taxes and excise(s), particularly with respect to their intention. With the exception of tolls, do you believe that the intention is to change behaviour, or is it of a fiscal nature? In considering your answer, what do you believe is the intention of road enforcement? Is it to change behaviour or is it fiscal in nature? Well, given the number of static and mobile cameras, the intention is, without question, fiscal – if every road user abides by the rules of the road, no revenue will be generated. Also, if the intention was not fiscal, then why do traffic officers hide behind scrubs and bushes to entrap road users? It would be interesting to know the amount of revenue that the traffic authorities generate through all road taxes (particularly over Easter) and also how this revenue would be used to effect behavioural change.

As for the intention of sin taxes and environmental levies – what do you believe the intention of their imposition is? Behaviour change? Really? As I have written extensively on this, I will not go into great detail. Just consider that the top three companies on the JSE, according to market capitalisation, are Anheuser-Busch InBev (R2 931 841 532 809), British American Tobacco (R1 801 742 636 965) and SABMiller (R1 581 776 857 408), according to http://www.sharenet.co.za. So, if, through the imposition of sin taxes and environmental levies, consumers no longer consume their products – behavioural change – then their tax liability would be dramatically lower. Talk about killing the goose (should be geese) that lays the golden egg. This implies that another source of tax revenue would need to be discovered. Just where in South Africa’s deindustrialised manufacturing environment would this be found?

Finally, have you ever been told just how the sin taxes and environmental levy revenues are used to address the externalities that they cause. Actually, the revenue that they generate is not ringfenced or earmarked. So, how is the revenue derived from road law enforcement used to address its externalities?
I will contend that the similarities in road tolls/taxes and excise(s) are more marked than you might think.