The recent installation of speed humps along sections of Windhoek’s B1 Western Bypass and A1 highway has once again exposed an unfortunate tendency within government decision-making: responding to tragedies with knee-jerk solutions rather than evidence-based interventions.
No one disputes that pedestrian fatalities on these roads are a serious concern. Every life lost is one too many, and authorities have a duty to act decisively to prevent further deaths. However, acting decisively is not the same as acting wisely.
The speed humps introduced by the Ministry of Works and Transport and implemented by the Roads Authority appear to be a reaction to recent pedestrian deaths on what is, by design, a high-speed road network. While the intention to save lives is commendable, the method chosen raises serious questions about planning, consultation and the understanding of modern road safety principles.
Almost immediately after the humps became operational, motorists reported severe traffic congestion and several rear-end collisions. One such incident reportedly involved a black SUV crashing into the back of a sedan shortly after the measures came into effect. Instead of reducing danger, the intervention appears to have introduced a new set of hazards.
Highways are engineered for uninterrupted traffic flow. Abrupt speed humps on roads carrying thousands of vehicles daily are unusual because they create sudden braking points, increase the likelihood of collisions and reduce overall traffic efficiency. Windhoek already struggles with increasing traffic volumes and congestion. The city can ill afford additional bottlenecks on some of its most important arterial roads.
Even if the speed humps were intended only as a temporary measure, they are still not an effective solution. Temporary solutions should minimise disruption while longer-term interventions are developed. In this case, the temporary measure itself has become part of the problem.
What makes the situation particularly frustrating is that there are numerous scientifically proven alternatives available.
Across the world, road safety experts have demonstrated that pedestrian fatalities on high-speed roads can be significantly reduced through infrastructure and technology. Pedestrian bridges and underpasses, improved fencing to prevent jaywalking, intelligent speed cameras, rumble strips, better street lighting, enhanced signage, controlled crossing points and targeted enforcement campaigns have all proven successful in different environments.
Data-driven traffic studies could have identified the precise causes of the accidents and guided authorities toward solutions tailored to local conditions. Instead, Namibia appears to have opted for the most visible solution rather than the most effective one.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time unusual road safety measures have raised eyebrows.
Namibians are still recovering from the spectacle of reflector jackets for livestock, introduced to reduce nighttime collisions involving animals. While the intention was understandable, the proposal became the subject of widespread ridicule. The problem was not the desire to save lives, but rather the perception that simplistic and somewhat comical remedies were being offered for complex challenges.
Road safety is a science. It is not guesswork.
The Safe System approach adopted by many countries recognises that human beings will inevitably make mistakes. Roads must therefore be designed in ways that minimise the consequences of those mistakes. This requires engineers, urban planners, behavioural scientists and road safety specialists working together to develop integrated solutions.
That is why the current controversy presents an opportunity for Works and Transport Minister Veikko Nekundi to demonstrate leadership. Rather than doubling down on a policy that is attracting widespread criticism, the minister should invite road traffic safety experts, transport engineers and independent specialists to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the affected sections.
Such consultations should not be viewed as a sign of weakness. On the contrary, they would demonstrate a willingness to place evidence above politics and expertise above expediency.
Public confidence in government interventions depends not only on good intentions but also on competence. Citizens want to know that policies are based on research, tested methodologies and international best practice.
The ultimate objective remains unquestionable: preventing unnecessary deaths on Namibia’s roads. But achieving that objective requires solutions that are both effective and sustainable.
Saving pedestrians should not come at the cost of creating new dangers for motorists. Nor should traffic management measures paralyse the city’s road network.
Namibia deserves better than reactionary policymaking. The country deserves solutions grounded in science, informed by experts and designed for long-term success.
Because when it comes to road safety, good intentions alone are not enough.
