Somerset West residents form third subcommittee to discuss forming a committee about the traffic circle on Lourens Street
The Lourens Street Traffic Circle Oversight Working Group (LSTCOWG) has, after eighteen months of sustained effort, four formal meetings, two extraordinary sessions, one recusal, a disputed set of minutes and a near-resignation over the question of whether biscuits constitute a claimable expense, produced its most significant output to date: a recommendation that a dedicated standing committee be formally constituted to take the matter forward. The traffic circle remains as it was. Traffic continues to approach it with creative interpretation.
Deur ons Munisipale Korrespondent, CM du Plessis Maandag, 28 April 2025.
It began, as so many things in Somerset West begin, with a WhatsApp message.
The message, sent at 7:43am on a Wednesday in October 2023 by a resident of Lourens Street who had just been cut off at the traffic circle for the third time that week by a bakkie that gave no indication, used no eye contact and offered no acknowledgement of having done anything unusual, read as follows: “Something needs to be done about this circle. WHO DO WE TALK TO.”
Forty-seven responses arrived within the hour. Thirty-one agreed that something needed to be done. Nine offered their own traffic circle grievances, which were related but distinct. Four suggested specific people to talk to, none of whom turned out to be the correct person. One sent a gif of a car crash that was felt by the group to be “a bit much.” And one, Kosie Liebenberg of Parel Vallei, retired civil engineer, a man who had been waiting for exactly this moment since approximately 2019, sent a 400-word message proposing the formation of a residents’ working group with a clear mandate, defined terms of reference and a structured engagement process with the municipality.
Kosie was immediately appointed chairperson, primarily because nobody else wanted to be and he already had a template.
I. The traffic circle: a brief history of an ongoing situation
The Lourens Street traffic circle was installed in 2019 as part of a broader traffic calming initiative described by the municipality at the time as “a proactive investment in pedestrian safety and traffic flow optimisation.” It replaced a four-way stop that had functioned adequately, if not perfectly, since 1994 and whose main failing was that it required drivers to stop completely, which a meaningful proportion of Somerset West motorists had always treated as a suggestion rather than a legal obligation.
The traffic circle, its proponents argued, would be self-regulating. Drivers would naturally yield. Flow would improve. The pedestrian crossing on the eastern approach would be safer. Everyone would be better off.
This is not quite what happened.
The circle is, by any objective measurement, too small. It was designed, sources in the municipality confirm, using a traffic model that did not adequately account for the turning radius of the delivery vehicles that use Lourens Street daily, the school-run traffic that peaks at 7:15am and 2:30pm or the particular local driving culture which holds that the give-way rule at a traffic circle applies to the other car, not oneself and that indicating is for people who are uncertain about their intentions, which a Somerset West driver never is. Since 2019, the circle has been the site of twenty-three recorded minor collisions, one notable incident involving a horse trailer that remains the subject of a separate insurance dispute and a continuous low-level friction between road users that has generated more WhatsApp content than any other single piece of infrastructure in the Helderberg Basin, including the N2 on-ramp, which is saying something.
“It’s not a traffic circle. It’s a suggestion. A very expensive, slightly too small suggestion, surrounded by plants that nobody waters.”
— Unnamed Lourens Street resident, who asked not to be identified “as I still have to live here”
II. The LSTCOWG: a structural overview
The Lourens Street Traffic Circle Oversight Working Group held its inaugural meeting on the 14th of November 2023, in the lounge of founding member Hettie van der Westhuizen — yes, the same Hettie, she is involved in everything, this is Somerset West — with nine members present, a borrowed projector and a plate of beskuit that Kosie noted in the opening remarks was “not billable but appreciated.”
The terms of reference were adopted after forty minutes of debate, most of which concerned whether the group’s mandate extended to the pedestrian crossing or only to the circle itself. This question was not fully resolved at the inaugural meeting, was carried over to the second meeting, generated a subcommittee (the Pedestrian Crossing Scope Clarification Subcommittee or PCSCS, which met once and produced a memo that raised more questions than it answered) and remains, at time of publication, technically open.
By the third meeting, the LSTCOWG had a logo — designed by Frik van Niekerk’s daughter, who does graphic design — a letterhead and a draft communication strategy. It did not yet have a response from the municipality, to whom it had written twice. The municipality acknowledged the first letter. It did not acknowledge the second. A third letter was drafted. It has not yet been sent, as there is a disagreement about the sign-off wording that the communications subcommittee is working through.
III. The third subcommittee: why it exists and what it is for
The Standing Committee Formation Subcommittee — the SCFS, pronounced by Kobus as a word, as he insists on doing with all acronyms, was proposed at the fourth meeting of the LSTCOWG on the 3rd of March 2025, following a lengthy discussion about the group’s long-term governance structure.
The discussion was prompted by a point raised by Sannie Drotsky, the group’s secretary, who noted that the LSTCOWG was constitutionally a working group, not a standing committee and that a working group, by its nature, implies a finite task with a defined endpoint, whereas the situation with the Lourens Street traffic circle appeared to be, in her words, “more of an ongoing condition than a project.” She proposed that the group consider formalising its structure into a standing committee that could engage with the municipality on a permanent basis.
Kobus, who had been thinking about this since at least November 2024 but had been waiting for someone else to raise it so it wouldn’t seem like he was expanding his own role, agreed immediately that it was an excellent idea and proposed that a subcommittee be formed to work out the details.
The motion was seconded by Frikkie. It was opposed, on procedural grounds, by Bertie Swanepoel of Somerset Street, who felt that the formation of a subcommittee to discuss forming a committee was “one layer too many” and that the group should simply vote on the matter directly. Bertie was asked whether he would like to serve on the proposed subcommittee. He said he would not. He was outvoted. The subcommittee was formed.
Bertie has since confirmed he remains “committed to the process, with reservations.”
“We are not going in circles. We are building a structure that will allow us to engage meaningfully with the circle. There is a difference. I have explained this difference several times.”
– K Liebenberg, LSTCOWG Chairperson, on the accusation that the group is going in circles, which he finds ironic and also inaccurate
IV. The minutes: a selection
Notule — LSTCOWG Vergadering #4 — 3 Maart 2025 — Hettie se sitkamer
Aanwesig: K. Liebenberg (voorsitter), H.P. van der Westhuizen, S. Drodsky (sekretaresse), F. van Niekerk, B.J. Swanepoel, M.M. Eksteen, D.P. Joubert, J.J.J. Pretorius (via WhatsApp-oudio, sy was in Hermanus).
Verskonings: P.O. Engelbrecht (knie). Die knie word beterwens gewens.
Punt 3: Beskuitkwessie: Die voorsitter het bevestig dat beskuit NIE as ‘n groepsuitgawe geëis kan word nie, aangesien die groep geen bankrekening het nie. Mev. Van der Westhuizen het aangebied om die beskuit te bly verskaf “sonder aansien des persoons en sonder verwagting van vergoeding.” Die notule teken haar bydrae met dank aan.
Punt 5: Munisipale Kommunikasie: Brief #3 aan die Direkteur: Verkeersinfrastruktuur is in konsep. Die kommunikasie-subkomitee verskil oor die gebruik van die woord “dringend” — mnr. Joubert voel dit is geregverdig; mev. Eksteen voel dit “stel te hoë verwagtinge wat ons nie kan waarmak nie.” Die kwessie is uitgestel.
Punt 7: Stigting van SCFS: Aangeneem 6-1 (mnr. Swanepoel teenstemde; mev. Pretorius se oudio het op hierdie punt uitgeskakel en haar stem is nie aangeteken nie). Die SCFS bestaan uit: K. Liebenberg, S. Drodsky, en F. van Niekerk. Eerste vergadering TBD.
Punt 9: Algemeen: Mnr. Van Niekerk het aangebied om die plante in die verkeersirkel water te gee as “goodwill gebaar” hangende die uitkoms van die formele proses. Die voorsitter het dit verwelkom maar gewaarsku dat dit as “aanvaarding van verantwoordelikheid vir infrastruktuur” beskou kan word. Mnr. Van Niekerk het die aanbod teruggetrek.
Volgende vergadering: Datum TBD. Nie ‘n Woensdag nie — Kobus het bridge.
V. Voices from the street
Danie, 52, delivery driver — Lourens Street daily
“I have been driving through that circle since it opened. I know every pothole on the approach, every driver who doesn’t give way, every morning when the school-run people park on the left side and block the entry. I did not know there was a committee. I do not think the committee has driven through there at 7:15am on a school day. I think this would be educational for them.”