Some considerations on the traffic in here

I think I must have complained in one of my entries this or last year about the driving culture in here. It's like Naples, but in Argentine case, it's the entire country: lanes are just drawings in the pavement that have no other value than the visual one; a car turning can always pass first without yielding to pedestrians (if someone's brave enough to try, he'll notice that cars WON'T stop); the seat belts are only used by poofs; the concept of drinking and driving being illegal is unheard of; the red traffic light not respected in by the police etc. etc.

I had thought that since no one -except for a Scandinavian like me obsessed with wearing the seat belt- seemed to care, accidents must not be that common despite all the signs pointing to the opposite direction. Well, it turns out I was wrong: in today´s newspaper it stood that traffic is the biggest single killer in Argentina amongst the population below the age of 35. It's a country of only 36 (?) million inhabitants, but each day there's well over a hundred people who die in traffic accidents. Although I have seen no signs of worry on the individual level, the government is now trying to start some programmes like stricter control of drinking when driving. However, there are very slim chances for this to work as police can always be bribed and I suspect that not all of them would even consider this as the most serious problem the country is facing. Or that they wouldn't drive, too, after a few glasses.

As I learned today, the city of Buenos Aires, however, has had enough with the bus drivers speeding and driving against the red lights: it's introduced a new programme where instead of the company having to pay fines (a cost that had begun to be considered as a part of the fixed costs of owning a bus company), the bus drives must now take extra driving lessons plus, as a form of community service, drive the school buses for free in the poorest areas of the city. Now, what is the real reasoning behind this? For me, it doesn't necessarily sound like the best deal for the poor at all. Is this just a cunning way of reducing the amount of people living on welfare?