The government’s plan to lower the legal alcohol driving limit to zero fails to account for drunk pedestrians and other road users who contribute to South Africa’s high vehicle fatality rates.
This is the view of Cor van Deventer, Director at Van Deventer Dowlath & Marx, who recently commented on the Department of Transport’s proposal to implement a zero-tolerance alcohol limit.
This comes shortly after Transport Minister Barbara Creecy announced that she had sent a proposal to Cabinet, which seeks to amend Section 65 of the National Road Traffic Act (NRTA).
She said her department hopes to have the amendment approved by the end of the year. She backed up her proposal, citing the more than 18,000 drunk driving arrests made between March and August 2026.
However, while the zero-alcohol tolerance limit for drivers ostensibly has good intentions behind it, several industry stakeholders have warned that the strict limit will cause new problems while failing to address the underlying problems behind South Africa’s high road fatalities.
“A decision to ban alcohol for drivers will have long-reaching, potentially positive implications,” asserts Van Deventer, “but what about the other risk profile? Intoxicated pedestrians are a large part of the crisis.”
He pointed out that pedestrians are also subject to the provisions of the NRTA, including not being drunk on a public road.
Van Deventer said that law enforcement is inconsistent in this regard and that pedestrians are an overlooked aspect of South Africa’s intoxication-related deaths.
“The Minister’s own statements point to intoxicated pedestrians being a major cause of fatalities,” he said.
“Zero‑tolerance will change driver behaviour, but it won’t fix the pedestrian crisis. If South Africa wants to reduce its fatalities, enforcement will have to go beyond the people in the driving seats.”
Right now, Section 65 of the NRTA 93 of 1996 stipulates that the legal breath limit for alcohol is measured in milligrams per 1,000 milliliters.
The limits for different categories of drivers are as follows:
- Ordinary drivers – less than 0.05 g per 100 ml of blood, or 0.24 mg per 1,000 ml of breath.
- Professional drivers – less than 0.02 g per 100 ml of blood, or 0.10 mg per 1,000 ml of breath.
Anyone who is caught behind the wheel exceeding these applicable limits can face arrest and prosecution.
A conviction may result in a fine or imprisonment, a criminal record, and a court-ordered suspension or cancellation of the driver’s licence, depending on the circumstances and applicable law.
No leeway for responsible citizens
The other major issue with a zero-tolerance approach to drunk driving enforcement is that it will effectively criminalize any and all alcohol usage.
“If the proposed amendment is enacted, the perceived ‘safe drink’ category will disappear, which means a casual drink at dinner could become a legal risk, and even a trace reading could lead to investigation or prosecution,” said Van Deventer.
He noted that law enforcement is heavily concentrated at roadblocks, but not in areas where intoxicated individuals tend to gather.
According to the Road Traffic Management Corporation, 44% of road fatalities recorded between January and August 2026 were pedestrians.
This highlights another issue with pedestrian deaths, which is that intoxicated individuals regularly navigate broken pathways with no lighting. Townships and other densely populated areas also tend to have freeways running through them.
Van Deventer said there was a disconnect between the rules that apply to drivers and those that apply to pedestrians.
“While national road traffic regulations prohibit conduct that’s likely to endanger the person or other traffic, there isn’t an equally clear, preventative framework for dealing specifically and pre-emptively with intoxicated pedestrians,” he said.
“A holistic road safety strategy needs to give officers the power to intervene before someone stumbles into the road.”
Regarding enforcement, Van Deventer said the zero-tolerance policy would test the police’s reliability and competence.
“This means the calibration of breathalysers, officer certification, device logs, roadside procedures and safeguards against false-positive results are all going to become critical,” he said.
There are also constitutional concerns as a zero-tolerance limit could raise questions about proportionality, fairness, equality and due process, particularly where trace readings result in criminal charges, he explained.
“Moving to such a strict driver limit has the potential to introduce operational and evidentiary challenges for a legal system that’s already under pressure. And there will be no margin for error.”
“Without rigorous procedural protection, the criminalisation of trace alcohol readings where no actual impairment can be shown could raise concerns under section 36 of the Constitution.”
He warned that this change could flood South Africa’s overburdened legal system with new cases that rely on laboratory tests, and even affect civil disputes involving insurers.
“The proposed amendment seems to deal with only one part of it, but the pedestrian risk that’s so deeply embedded in the country’s fatality profile needs to be addressed just as firmly,” he said.
“To reach the Minister’s goal of halving road fatalities by 2030, we need an inclusive framework that supports pedestrian infrastructure, local policing powers, and legislative reform as strictly as it does zero tolerance driving.”
Loading ...
