The Dewan Rakyat’s recent passage of amendments to the Road Transport Act 1987 reflects growing concern over road safety.
Among the changes is an increase in the maximum compound rate from RM300 to RM500, which the Transport Minister defended as necessary to improve compliance and address dangerous behaviours such as speeding, reckless driving and running red lights.
The minister also rejected suggestions that the move was intended to raise revenue, stressing instead the objective was safer roads.
On this point, there is little disagreement.
Road fatalities continue to impose a heavy toll on Malaysian society, recording 6,537 deaths in 2025.
Stronger enforcement and stiffer penalties send an important signal that dangerous behaviour will not be tolerated.
Yet if the goal is compliance, it is worth asking whether compliance can be achieved through enforcement alone.
The reality is that enforcement has limits.
Police officers cannot be stationed at every junction, pedestrian crossing and residential street around the clock.
Even with digital enforcement, resources remain finite.
A summons can only be issued after an offence has occurred.
This is why many jurisdictions increasingly view road safety not merely as a question of driver behaviour, but also of road design.
Drivers do not determine their speed based solely on road signs.
They respond to the environment around them.
Wide, straight and open roads tend to encourage higher speeds because they feel comfortable and forgiving.
Roads that appear narrower, busier and more enclosed often encourage greater caution.
Jalan Mahkota in Cheras, Selangor, illustrates the point.
For years, mature roadside trees formed a canopy over much of the commercial street.
Following concerns arising from a tree-fall incident, the trees were removed.
Today, the road feels noticeably wider and more exposed.
Whether traffic speeds have increased is a matter for empirical study.
What is immediately apparent, however, is how differently the street now feels.
The example illustrates a broader point – streets are not neutral pieces of infrastructure.
They shape behaviour.
A tree-lined commercial street signals the presence of pedestrians, businesses and daily community activity.
A wide, open corridor conveys a different message.
This is not an argument against removing hazardous trees where public safety requires it.
Rather, it highlights how physical design can influence behaviour long before any law is enforced.
Traffic-calming measures, raised pedestrian crossings, narrower lane widths and street trees work continuously without requiring an enforcement officer to be present.
They do not eliminate human error, but they can reduce both the likelihood of mistakes and the severity of their consequences.
In this sense, road design can be viewed not as an alternative to enforcement, but as another tool for achieving the same objective – safer behaviour on public roads.
The amendments to the Road Transport Act are a welcome step towards improving compliance.
Yet compliance is not achieved through enforcement alone.
As policymakers confront the challenge of distracted driving and other dangerous behaviours, the conversation should extend beyond what happens after a violation occurs to what can be done to prevent it from occurring in the first place.
A summons can only be issued after a mistake has been made.
Good road design works before the mistake happens.
Shing Si Yan
Kuala Lumpur
