Unnecessary hazards on Malaysian roads

The sewage water overflowing from the manhole in front of the Bandar Tasik Selatan LRT station, pools into puddles around the area causing the whole area to smell foul. Sam Tham/Star Publication

ROAD users in Malaysia are all too familiar with the myriad of manholes on our streets that are used by workers to access underground utility networks like sewers, storm drains or electrical cables for inspection and maintenance.

Of late, we have seen an array of manholes being installed by telecommunications providers. Unfortunately, the quality of the work leaves much to be desired, leaving uneven edges, irregular dips and sinking surfaces, which create severe hazards for motor vehicles.

Countless flat tyres and damaged rims can be traced directly to these uneven surfaces, which are often caused by the structure sinking over time or bad initial paving.

For motorcyclists, the danger is even more severe; hitting one of these sharp depressions unexpectedly can easily cause a loss of control, leading to life-threatening accidents.

I entirely understand the practical need for these manholes and access points. They are critical for locating network faults, running cables and conducting repairs. However, actual physical access to these holes is rare; perhaps once every two years, if not less.

In the meantime, thousands of daily commuters are forced to dangerously manoeuvre around them day after day, year after year.

Our frequent heavy downpours mask these deep dips as harmless puddles, turning them into perilous hidden traps.

A logical solution would be to pave entirely over these inspection holes to ensure a completely smooth, continuous road surface.

The exact location of the hatch can be marked with high-visibility paint or a small flush marker on the curb so that utility teams can easily identify it when needed.

While digging up a small patch of asphalt to gain access might take a little extra effort once every two years, it is a minor trade-off. It would save hundreds of thousands of road users from enduring a permanently broken road surface.

Any basic cost-benefit analysis considering vehicle damage, medical costs and human lives will favour covering these uneven hazards.

But there is a second, equally compelling reason to adopt this approach: it creates a direct financial incentive for utility companies to get the installation right the first time.

If we require them to pay for the removal and reinstatement of the covering material every time they need access, the economics shift overnight.

Currently, these companies have little motivation to execute precise, flush installations because the ongoing cost of poor workmanship is borne entirely by the public. Make them bear the cost of their own future access, and they will suddenly find it economical to do the job perfectly from the outset.

A lid installed level with the road surface requires no covering at all. It grants instant, cost-free access. It eliminates the hazard permanently. The penalty for sloppy work becomes the very cure for it.

A momentary, isolated inconvenience for a utility company during rare maintenance work is well worth the greater good of public safety and comfort. I strongly urge the relevant authorities to look seriously into implementing this suggestion.

YAP YOK FOO

Kuala Lumpur