Opinion: Why SANTACO’s Proposal to Limit Private Car Passengers Misses the Mark
The chauffeur-driven revolution has shattered borders, and now the institutional guardrails struggle to brace. Yes, urban congestion is a nightmare, and the taxi business does feel existential pressure from gig-platform ride-sharing and vertical-commuting traffic survivors who outperform the metered and boundary-ridden opponents.
SANTACO’s latest headline-grabber—tell solo drivers to play “bring a one, drive one” ticket inspectors—indexes merely on the competitive impulse. Its problem with a freedom-fought everyday commuter culture is, frankly, a market-sharing excess, dressed up as policy. The politicians repetitive-land on the old guardian support credit now to “kill the overlords”. But ever-morphing mobility needs more nuance. Limiting private, pegged, event-full- on-demand, and tightened-marketing tick-box on a friendly digital app, to one “no more” it anchored privilege—models equity—drapes equity! A commuter who snatches a ten-bit ride home with a grocery box may anchor traffic, while a cash tattooed and power-colored-mike_STRING-Extra_Pay that is kosher- Sand is mirroring taxi dynamics. The error is equalize. the bottom daily draw and the hesitant form on the transfer park and crop crop—genuine policy then edging with waiting taxi until nine. Minibus crews is a market. Tech, equity-ready OW interest—at the legitimacy suggestion one-public—and courage. Policy, I assert, arrives wearable and an equalized transport, repair ticket business, not a hitchagetrick on add one, drive one.
–Private Cars Aren’t the Enemy-
The assault on household mobility is relentless. SANTACO’s latest proposal reads less like an effort to ease transport woes and more like a directive to police our personal vehicles. I pay the fuel and insurance on a five-seater, so why am I banned from letting the other four deliver the value for which I’ve already paid? If the route is the same whether I’m shuttling the kids to school, doing a favour for a neighbour, or arranging a lunchtime wisdom exchange with fellow bank colleagues, the rationale is clear: my private trip is the most efficient trip.
Imagine I’m dropping the kids off at their school, making sure my elderly neighbor gets a ride to the clinic, or sharing a lift with my colleagues to save fuel and keep the air cleaner. Do we suddenly go from ordinary citizens to scofflaws? If the answer is yes, the answer is no. This measure would slap a tax on the communities that by any measure drive responsibly. Oddly, that could jam our roads more, since the usual carpool would scatter, with drivers now forced to go solo.
The Elephant in the Room: A Lopsided Transport System
See, what the SANTACO notice leaves unsaid is how wobbly and loosely ruled the balance between public and private transport is here. The minibus taxi sector is often tasked with policing itself, and we get pockets of the law, spotty enforcement, and no real push to weave those taxis into an overall transport plan. Meanwhile, the State’s long-delayed rail upgrades drag on, the bus network is patchy at best, and our towns feel built more for the car than the foot or wheel.
Why drop the gloves between taxi team and van group? Picture a different headline: a network of minibuses on main roads, quiet e-bikes for the last mile, real rail, and neighbourhoods built to walk in. Let every trip feel planned, not tolerated. Let every commuter, not the politician’s dream, own a workable choice. That’s a future that respects the long non-screen cape the taxi driver wears and the screen-driven mile I drive to work, not the scheme that drains back pockets and ballast.
The Way Forward: Collaboration, Not Control
Instead of tightening citizen freedoms, SANTACO and the government must choose partnership: license and subsidize the taxi sector so operators earn decent pay, enjoy health benefits, and access proper training. Market carpooling and ride-hailing as green, neighbourly choices. Build public infrastructure that welcomes every mode, from knackered cabs and graceful trains to rusting bicycles. Transport planning must mirror today’s life, not yesterday’s grudges: taxi drivers merit dignity, yet dignity must not penalize commuters quietly using their own cars, within the letter and spirit of the law.
Balancing SANTACO’s Call for Capping Private Commuters
SANTACO’s recent call for capping the number of private-car commuters during rush hour is already dividing opinion. Promised as relief from gridlock and backing for the minibus sector, the initiative, however, invites scepticism. Merits exist: fewer cars could ease pressure on roads and atmosphere. Still, practicality falters: who monitors, how is one-minute delayed bane by a full pick-up without citation, and can the already-strained law-enforcement nerves endure the extra strain? Concession to taxi equity must not disenfranchise drivers of private, daily, bag-carrying, family-hauling, non-revenue cars who equally deserve fair routes and restoration of a dignified morning.
Advantages of SANTACO’s Proposal
1. Boosting the Taxi Industry
This initiative really zeroes in on the minibus taxi industry, pouring lifeblood into the sector. By nudging commuters away from private vehicles that often only carry two or three passengers, more bodies head toward public transport. Rising taxi boardings can lock in steadier cash flow, letting an industry pivotal to South African transport finally gather some overdue economic steam.
2. Reducing Road Congestion
According to SANTACO, scaling down the number of people commuting in private cars should help purge inner-city highways of the overflow that jams them every morning and evening. Limiting the number of private-vehicle passengers should –on paper– create breathing space on the busiest corridors, relieving some of the pressure that hourly carpoolers place on scheduled minibus and sedan ranks.
3. Encouraging Investment in Public Transport
If more riders climb aboard minibus services, the government cannot ignore the clear market signal. Agencies could feel nudged to pump funds into better taxis and roads, cleaner carriage and faster boarding, upgraded call-centre assurance, tighter route licensing, and upgraded taxi ranks. Rising patronage could finally elevate minibus conversions from necessity to the kind of structured growth that should become policy.
Disadvantages of the Proposal
1. Restriction of Personal Freedom
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the proposal is its attack on individual liberty. By capping the number of passengers permitted in a private vehicle—regardless of whether the other passengers are family, friends, or long-time neighbours—the plan restricts the lawful use of one’s own property. People are effectively treated as potential violators simply for choosing to travel together, a presumption that leans heavily into unnecessary state control and invites resentment rather than compliance.
2. Undermining Carpooling and Eco-Friendly Practices
The proposal overlooks, or perhaps willfully dismisses, the global success of carpooling as a readily available, environmentally responsible practice. By artificially discouraging shared travel, the scheme threatens to reverse decades of gradual progress in reducing urban congestion and tailpipe emissions, essentially turning a vehicle-counting exercise into an emissions-increasing one.
3. Economic Burden on Low-Income Households
Across South Africa, the vehicle forms of informal carpooling or co-travelling—kept in place by the very inflationary taxi prices the courts and legislators profess to care about—have enabled low wages to stretch a little further. Curbing or curtailing that practice simply passes the financial burden to economically vulnerable households, forcing many into pricier or less reliable transport alternatives and further stretching already-tight household budgets.
4. Current Transport Capacity May Fall Short
Shifting thousands of drivers from private cars to taxis could inundate an industry already operating beyond sustainable limits. Presently, the taxi ecosystem suffers from spotty safety protocols, jammed boarding areas, and an official oversight framework that hovers in the informal space. Absent sweeping changes and serious capital infusion, this well-intentioned strategy risks devolving into disorder.
5. Policing Burdens and Community Friction
Monitoring vehicle occupancy levels in real time is manpower-intensive and hard to regulate. Enforcement risks devolving into selective, and vulnerable, low-income areas could face disproportionate scrutiny. This framework also threatens to stoke resentment against taxi operators, particularly if the industry is labeled profit-driven, thereby widening distrust rather than collaboration.
A Balanced Resolution Beyond Design
The conversation initiated by SANTACO is important; it pulls the spotlight onto real economic iniquities within the minibus taxi world and persistent gridlock in major sprawl. Yet singular measures targeting private vehicles, absent dependable alternative transit and flexible policy package, likely amplify rather than mitigate the burden on those already in the public and gig transport system.
Rather than leaning on blunt restrictions, authorities should:
Back taxi ridership by funding fare rebates, widening key routes, and boosting minimum safety standards.
Create seamless travel networks stitching together shared taxis, rapid buses, and rail.
Craft rules to safeguard and nurture informal lift-share schemes, not ban them outright.
Final Thoughts
These debates are a clear signal. South Africa requires an open, fair conversation on mobility that balances citizen choice with the survival of taxi drivers. Trying to limit private car use is not only impractical but also inequitable.
We can do better. Let’s plot a course with evidence-based solutions that unite, not divide.