When the Law Meant to Protect Our Children Puts Them at Risk

As an advocate for child road safety, I find myself in a painful dilemma. Every day I tell parents: buckle your children, use car seats, never compromise on safety. But then the  National Road Traffic Act makes this advice almost impossible for many families to follow.

What Regulation 213 Demands

Regulation 213 is clear and firm: infants must be in car seats, children must use restraints or seatbelts, and everyone in the vehicle must buckle up if a belt is fitted. On paper, this is exactly what we want: a law that recognises the vulnerability of children and holds drivers accountable for protecting them.

What Regulation 231 Allows

And then comes Regulation 231 – which says that children under three don’t count for loading, that two preschoolers equal one person, and that three children under 13 equal two adults. In other words, the law allows more children in the car than there are seats and seatbelts. Adults get the belted seats first, and children are left to “make do.”

How do I, as an advocate, advise parents here? Regulation 213 tells them every child must be restrained, while Regulation 231 makes that requirement impossible to meet.

The Contradiction I Face Every Day

• I tell parents never to hold a child on their lap. Yet in a minibus taxi, with no extra belts and no money for double fares, they have no other option.
• I tell families that every child needs their own seatbelt. Yet the law itself says it’s legal to overload children – so when the belts run out, children lose out.
• I tell the truth about crashes: no adult can hold onto a child in a collision. But the law continues to make that unsafe compromise a daily reality for thousands of families.

The Human Cost of Loopholes

We see it too often: children travelling unrestrained in the backs of cars, in overloaded minibuses, and even in the open load bays of bakkies. A 2017 amendment made it illegal to carry schoolchildren in the back of a bakkie for reward, yet the practice continues in many communities because there are no affordable alternatives. Every one of these loopholes carries a human cost – children injured or killed because the law bends to capacity instead of standing firm for safety.

Safe Public Transport: A Missing Link

It is important to be clear: minibus taxis are not public transport. They are private, for-profit vehicles operating in an under regulated and under enforced industry. South Africa does not currently offer families a safe, subsidised public nor school transport system that prioritises children. True public transport- state-funded, regulated, and designed with safety at its core – could relieve parents of impossible choices and ensure that children reach school and home in secure conditions. Without this, families are left to navigate a system where safety is optional and affordability dictates risk.

When the Law Fails the Constitution and the Children’s Act

As an advocate, I cannot ignore that these regulations don’t only contradict each other – they may also contradict the highest law of the land.

Our Constitution is clear: a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child (Section 28). Allowing laws that make restraint use impossible, or that treat children as fractions of a person when calculating vehicle loads, cannot be squared with that principle. It puts convenience above children’s lives.

The Children’s Act reinforces this by demanding that children’s safety, care and well-being come first in all decisions that affect them. Yet, neither Regulation 213 nor 231 meets that standard. Regulation 213 waters down its protections with loopholes and exemptions. Regulation 231 openly prioritises capacity over safety, eroding the very protection the Children’s Act promises.

So here I am, tasked with telling parents to do everything in their power to protect their children, while our laws themselves create conditions that leave children unsafe. It is not only poverty that endangers children on our roads — it is also the very regulations that are supposed to keep them safe.

Why This Matters

Children are not small adults. They are more vulnerable in crashes because of their size, their developing bodies, and their total dependence on adults to protect them. Every regulation should reflect this truth. Instead, our current system puts children last: adults buckle up, children are left to chance.

What Needs to Change

If we are serious about protecting children, then the law must stop speaking out of both sides of its mouth. We need:

• Alignment of regulations: No more loopholes that permit unsafe loading while demanding restraint use.
• A child-first principle: When seatbelts are short, children get them first. Always.
• Safe, subsidised public transport: Families must have a real alternative to unsafe taxis and bakkies.
• A National School Transport Policy: Regulated safe transport for all our children, especially in rural areas.

Where This Leaves Me as an Advocate

So what do I tell parents today? I will keep saying: If there’s a car seat, use it. If there’s a belt, buckle it. If the system forces you into unsafe compromises, know that it is the system failing you, not you failing your child.

But I will also raise my voice louder: it is time for the law to stop favouring capacity over safety, and to start protecting children as a matter of non-negotiable principle.

Call to Action

Every day, our laws force parents into impossible choices: too many children, not enough seatbelts, and regulations that value capacity over safety. But while we work to change those laws, we can still act now to protect children.

If you have a car seat your child has outgrown, please donate it to Wheel Well. One seat can mean the difference between a child travelling unrestrained or protected. By passing it on, you help close the gap that our regulations leave wide open.

👉 Donate your car seat today — because until the law puts children first, we must.