Before we collect more data — Chandra Mohan Sinnandavar

JULY 7 — Finally, after years of waiting, LRT3 is now operating. Like many commuters in the Klang Valley, I have already begun to feel the difference. My daily journey is smoother, traffic congestion has eased, and I arrive at work feeling less fatigued. More importantly, I now get home 10 to 20 minutes earlier, leaving me with more time to spend with my family. Perhaps the lighter traffic is partly due to the government’s decision to offer free rides during the first month of operation. If so, I hope this temporary incentive encourages more people to adopt public transport as a long-term habit, allowing today’s smoother traffic conditions to continue.

For me, LRT3 is more than just another rail line. It demonstrates what thoughtful public investment and policy continuity can achieve. Transport infrastructure may not be as eye-catching as landmark buildings, but it quietly improves everyday life by reducing travel time, easing stress and improving work-life balance. Its completion also shows that worthwhile projects can be carried through across different administrations when good governance remains the priority.

It is this same spirit of policy continuity that I hope can also be applied to another important area of transportation: commercial vehicle safety. Following several tragic commercial vehicle accidents last year that shocked the nation, the Ministry of Transport acted swiftly by introducing the phased implementation of Speed Limitation Devices (SLDs). The decision was timely. Speed has long been recognised as a major contributor to the severity of heavy vehicle accidents, and decisive action was needed to restore public confidence.

Every new safety requirement must balance public safety, operational realities and industry sustainability. That is why consistency in implementation matters. The recent decision to defer the final phase of SLD enforcement therefore raises understandable questions within the industry. Although the ministry explained that operators needed more time to complete retrofit installations, one cannot help but wonder whether sufficient engagement had taken place with operators, installers and other stakeholders before the original timeline was announced. Were workshop capacity, installation lead times and parts availability adequately assessed beforehand? When implementation timelines change, businesses incur additional costs through rescheduled installations, revised maintenance plans and financing adjustments. The real cost, however, is confidence. Policies introduced without adequate operational readiness risk being met with greater scepticism in the future.

Almost immediately afterwards, the ministry announced its roadmap to introduce telematics for commercial vehicles. There is little doubt that telematics is a significant technological advancement. The issue, however, is not whether telematics is good technology. It certainly is. The more important question is whether we are fully utilising the systems already in place.

Throughout my years in the transport industry, GPS has become a standard operating tool rather than a luxury. Commercial vehicle operators already rely on it to monitor fleet movements and driver behaviour, generating valuable operational data every day. The real challenge is not collecting more information but making better use of the information we already have. If companies already know which drivers repeatedly speed or brake aggressively, are those drivers receiving coaching before an accident occurs? Likewise, are regulators making full use of this information to identify high-risk operators and intervene proactively?

Data only becomes valuable when it leads to action. A speeding report should trigger a conversation with the driver. Repeated harsh braking should lead to coaching, while fatigue indicators should prompt intervention before an accident happens. Technology identifies risks, but people, leadership and management ultimately reduce them. Installing more technology without fully utilising existing information is rather like collecting degrees and certificates without applying the knowledge. Likewise, more sensors and more sophisticated systems will not automatically produce safer roads if the information they generate is not translated into better decisions and timely interventions.

This should not be interpreted as an argument against telematics. I welcome any technology that genuinely improves road safety. However, before asking the industry to invest in another generation of monitoring technology, we should first ensure that existing systems are being fully utilised. If today's GPS-generated information is not consistently translated into better coaching, stronger enforcement and safer driving practices, what assurance do we have that tomorrow's richer telematics data will be utilised any differently?

Consistency in implementation is just as important as innovation. Before telematics eventually becomes part of our regulatory framework, perhaps the ministry could first publish a baseline assessment showing how existing GPS-generated information is currently being utilised. For example, what proportion of speeding or harsh-braking alerts resulted in documented coaching or enforcement? Such information would provide a valuable benchmark for evaluating whether future investments in telematics genuinely improve road safety.

Over the years, I have learnt that sustainable improvements rarely come from technology alone. They come from consistent policies, disciplined implementation and organisations prepared to act on the information already available. Sometimes, safer roads do not begin with collecting more data. They begin with making better use of the data we already have.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.