2026-02-18 / debate: Special Commodity Levy Act Order, Customs Ordinance Resolution, Motor Traffic Act Regulations 2026-02-18
## Summary
Hon. Kugathasan spoke in support of two sets of regulations under the Motor Traffic Act — the Motor Traffic (Expressway) Regulations and the Motor Traffic (Drug Use) Regulations — gazetted under Nos. 2463/04 and 2407/52, framing them as necessary updates to address procedural gaps in road safety law. He outlined key provisions, including mandatory seat belts for all passengers and seats on expressways, shared responsibility between drivers and vehicle owners for compliance, and a structured framework for drug-impaired driving detection requiring approved saliva screening devices and mandatory laboratory confirmation — contrasting these with the more subjective and procedurally limited 1979 and 2011 legislative frameworks. He acknowledged concerns raised by the Private Bus Owners' Association regarding the cost and technical difficulty of retrofitting approximately 6,000 pre-2011 buses, as well as questions about the accuracy of saliva tests and potential for police misuse of appearance-based suspicion criteria. He proposed remedial measures including subsidies for safety equipment, transition assistance for non-compliant bus operators, legal clarification distinguishing prescription drug use from illegal drug use, and mandatory body-worn cameras for officers conducting roadside drug tests.
Hon. Deputy Speaker, I wish to share my views on the approval of two sets of regulations, published in Gazettes 2463/04 and 2407/52 under the Motor Traffic Act (Chapter 203): the Motor Traffic (Expressway) Regulations and the Motor Traffic (Drug Use) Regulations. These are the Government’s response to evolving road safety risks in a system long constrained by basic laws without robust procedures.
According to the WHO, road traffic deaths in Sri Lanka are 15.2 per 100,000—above the Asia-Pacific average—mandating evidence-based interventions. The 2025 amendments are not mere tools; they fill long-standing procedural gaps for detecting drug-impaired driving and enhancing expressway safety.
Key features:
- Expressway safety belts: Regulation 8A requires the driver and all passengers to wear seat belts while on an expressway. Under Regulation 8B, vehicles whose seats are not fitted with seat belts cannot enter expressways. Regulation 8 places responsibility on the vehicle owner as well. Regulation 8C requires the driver’s seat to have a three-point upper and lateral restraint. Regulation 8E(b) requires at least two anchorage points for front and rear seats, depending on design. Regulation 8D(1)(b) mandates individual seat belts on all rear and middle seats of dual-purpose and light vehicles; Regulation 8D(1)(c) makes seat belts compulsory on all seats of vehicles used for school and office services.
- Drug-impaired driving: The regulations provide a comprehensive framework based on “reasonable suspicion”. A police officer may initiate testing based on abnormal behavior, altered speech, loss of balance or appearance. The officer is empowered to use an approved saliva screening device.
These differ significantly from earlier frameworks. Although Act No. 31 of 1979 prohibited drug use while driving, it lacked precise procedures. Under the 1979 and 2011 laws, officers relied on subjective suspicion; testing devices were not mandatory. Now, in addition to reasonable suspicion, an approved saliva test is required. Previously, a Government Medical Officer’s report was adequate without mandatory laboratory confirmation; now lab confirmation is compulsory.
Earlier, only front seats in light vehicles had belts; now, all seats in any vehicle on expressways must have belts. Previously, ensuring seat belt use was only the driver’s responsibility; now it is shared by both driver and owner. The fine for drunk driving, previously Rs. 2,000, is proposed to increase to Rs. 25,000–30,000.
While safety aims are clear, private transport operators have raised concerns. The Private Bus Owners’ Association notes that about 6,000 buses registered before 2011 lack seat belts; retrofitting old buses is technically difficult and costly. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of saliva tests, potential false positives and the risk that subjective “appearance” criteria could enable police harassment. Studies indicate up to 31% discrepancies between screening outcomes and final targets.
To address stakeholder concerns and reconcile inconsistencies, I propose:
- Operationalize the proposed welfare fund for private transport drivers and provide subsidies for safety equipment.
- Offer assistance to transition from old buses to compliant new vehicles instead of retrofitting where impractical.
- Amend laws to clearly differentiate medically necessary prescriptions from illegal drugs.
- Mandate police use of body-worn cameras during testing.
Sri Lanka’s 2025 regulations align with best practices in the UK, Australia and Singapore. These two sets of regulations are necessary to take our transport safety to the next level. Implementation must be transparent, with attention to technical and economic challenges.
Thank you.