As is known, the European Transport Policy Center (ETPC) is a public benefit association. And since its establishment in 2020, it has not stopped working to improve road safety in our country.
Our experience so far shows that this is a labor-intensive, slow, multi-layered and cumbersome task that requires persistence and consistency. Reluctance and sluggishness on the part of the responsible institutions are very often apparent, and when lobbying interests intervene in the matter, things become even more complicated.
How many times have you encountered faint or no road markings, and had a moment or more of hesitation about the right course of action? Or have you seen a mark that was just placed, but after no more than two or three weeks to a month, it has already been erased? How many times have you had to wait years for road markings to be restored in a section?
Often, right? This continues, and continues, and continues, and it seems that no one from the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (MRRD) and its subordinate agency "Road Infrastructure" (API) doesn't notice. In just one year, we received more than 200 signals about missing road markings. And gradually we get used to driving with barely visible markings, praying to avoid getting into a dangerous situation.
Road markings serve to guide drivers to the right direction or to a certain restriction. The sooner we see the marking and understand what it is telling us, the easier it will be to find our way. The more we stare and don't understand what the marking is trying to tell us, the more tired we get. And a tired driver will make a mistake sooner or later. So, that's how important road markings are for road safety.
It is precisely because of what has been listed so far by ECTP that we are obliged to present facts and ask questions with the sole aim of making a change.
Here are the facts:
1. On April 9, 2024, a meeting of the inter-ministerial working group (IMG), of which ECTP is also a member, was held in the MRRB. Proposals to reduce certain criteria related to light reflectivity and skid resistance coefficients SRT in the new Road Marking Ordinance were discussed;
2. The idea under point 1 comes from the association for private benefit "Cluster Bultehnoplast", which, however, is also a member of the MRG;
3. Three of the members of the Management Board of "Bultehnoplast Cluster" are managers of two companies that have signed contracts with API - for maintenance of the republican road network, more specifically for laying road markings;
4. At the beginning of the meeting in question on 04/09/2024, the representatives of ECTP proposed not to consider ideas coming from companies serving private interests, because these companies have an interest in lowering the criteria in order to increase their profits at the expense of the quality of road markings, respectively the life and health of travelers on the republican road network;
5. The request under item 4 of the ECTP was not only not accepted, but even in defense of the proposals of the "Bultehnoplast Cluster" information was presented by the Ph.D. chem. Dafinka Pangarova from the Institute for Roads and Bridges (IPM), a state institution that is basically responsible for checking the quality of road markings;
6. The story does not end here. The next day we received two reports containing information from the IPM testing laboratory for testing road marking materials;
7. It is clear from the protocols that the tested road marking does not meet the minimum requirements of Art. 7, para. 11 of the current Ordinance No. 2 of 2001 of the MRRB on road signaling with road markings;
8. However, Mrs. Pangarova and Veselin Dimitrov, Ph.D. Eng., from IPM, note in the protocols that the results obtained may be due to contamination and may be declared acceptable.
9. After the meeting in question, ECTP sent an official question to the Minister of Regional Development and Public Works, Mrs. Violeta Koritarova, regarding the situation that had arisen. We ask questions, of course we don't get answers, even the letters we send don't come in on time. We also asked whether, according to the new minister, it is appropriate to allow private companies to work with the MRG.
We are still waiting for answers, but it is proper and public to ask the following questions, thereby addressing all responsible institutions:
1. Is it right for IPM officials to look for a way to justify uncovered requirements for the quality of road markings and thus suggest that there is nothing strange about the criteria being lower?
2. Is it normal for officials to draw conclusions from tests carried out in a way that coincides with proposals to reduce criteria, which have not yet entered into force, coming earlier from a private benefit association, namely from its members who have contracts with API, and which exactly IPM should check?
3. Is it proper for persons, companies and associations with an obvious private interest to be part of the MWG of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and to participate in the discussions on the amendment of normative acts?
4. Is it not logical to assume that adopting low criteria regarding road markings is a direct threat to the health and life of all road users?
5. Do the characters in all of the above think that this safety game actually affects them and their loved ones?
6. Do Bulgarian citizens agree that someone should play with their lives and their health at the expense of the profits of two or three companies, and what is more important - our lives or profits?
7. How long will we tolerate officials' pockets being filled at the expense of human victims, and will there be an objective and fair investigation this time and public servants fired?
A lot of questions, but just like with the road markings in Bulgaria, there is no desire to give answers.