Why Wait Five Years to Scrap Unfit Vehicles?

Why should a vehicle that has already failed to meet fitness requirements wait five long years before becoming eligible for scrapping? This is the question raised by the government’s decision to extend the threshold from one year to five years under the Motor Vehicle Scrapping and Recycling Policy 2026. We find the change deeply concerning because it could give poorly maintained vehicles more time in circulation when the priority should be to remove them once they fail to meet basic requirements.

According to a recent report published in this newspaper, the Road Transport and Highways Division issued the new policy on September 29. The change comes at a time when Bangladesh already struggles with an ageing vehicle fleet and weak enforcement. World Bank estimates indicate that the country has more than six million registered vehicles, with buses averaging over 20 years and trucks more than 15 years. Meanwhile, the human cost of weaknesses in our transport system was again evident on Friday in Mymensingh, where a bus collided with an auto-rickshaw, killing seven people, including four members of the same family spanning four generations. The crash does not establish that an unfit vehicle was involved. Nevertheless, it highlights why allowing vehicles that have failed fitness requirements to remain on the road for longer deserves careful scrutiny.

To be fair, the new policy contains several welcome measures. Notice periods have been shortened, auction and disposal procedures expedited, and chassis and engine numbers are to be destroyed to prevent scrapped vehicles from returning to circulation. Financial incentives and low-interest loans for owners of scrapped commercial vehicles could also encourage fleet modernisation. These are useful reforms. Even so, making the final disposal process faster does not answer the central question of why a vehicle that has already failed a fitness requirement should remain in circulation for so long.

Moreover, transportation advocates have warned that the extended window could create opportunities for unroadworthy commercial fleets to remain active. This does not mean compliant operators will necessarily misuse the provision. Rather, it shows how a longer deadline can be exploited where enforcement is already uneven. Against this backdrop, the government must ensure that the five-year threshold does not become a convenient reason to postpone repairs, replacement or withdrawal. 

Therefore, closer coordination among the BRTA, traffic enforcement authorities and transport associations is essential. Fitness inspections must remain regular, transparent and properly enforced, while vehicles that fail mandatory requirements should face timely action. Concurrently, owners of ageing commercial vehicles need practical financial support to replace them.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether the government can make the scrapping process faster. It is whether the policy enables authorities and vehicle owners to deal with unfit vehicles promptly. More importantly, administrative convenience should not outweigh public safety. We believe citizens deserve a transport system where fitness standards mean something and where a vehicle that fails those standards does not receive an unnecessarily long lease of life.