Kevin McLoughlin wrote:
The threat of a long prison sentence could now tempt motorists charged with such an offence to deflect responsibility on to another party – and their employer, warns barrister Kevin McLoughlin, could be the first one they blame.
He told SHP: “Blaming their employer for causing them to hurry, make business-related phone calls, or drive when tired may all figure in future cases. Prudent employers should review their driving policies to ensure they contain clear statements of principle. ‘You must never contravene the Highway Code when driving in the course of business’ might be a decent starting point.”
I've had the pleasure of working with only one dispatcher who did everything he could to give us adequate time to find a client and complete a trip, kept the business calls short, sweet, and to the point, required us to take frequent breaks, and would not ever let us work shifts greater than twelve hours.
I am repeatedly told by my colleagues in the field that that dispatcher was and is an exception. I have every reason to believe them.
Notwithstanding the fact that operating a dispatched taxi service requires chronic twoway communication while driving, the employer only has three real defenses available against being held proximately or more so responsible for a driver's inattention:
A clearly defined protocol for what, when, where, how, and why to communicate, while driving or otherwise
Dismissing a driver who demonstrates a daft lack of proficiency communicating, including but not limited to bad driving while using the radio or the phone PRIOR to that driver being in an actual collision
The willingness and the means to equip drivers with the necessary skills to perform the duties clearly expected of them
In the 2003 Canadian documentary
The Corporation ... ahem ... the, um, corporation, is compared to a person displaying callous unconcern for the feelings of others, incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness (repeated lying to and deceiving of others for profit), incapacity to experience guilt, and failure to conform to the social norms with respect to lawful behaviors.
(In other words, a
psychopath.)
Most other jobs that might prefer communicating with an employee who happens to be driving, do not - yet - explicitly state that is a performance requirement.
It isn't a stretch to guess that the corporation will pressure the employer, who in turn will pressure its employees.
When an employee makes that tragic mistake of having a collision while speaking with their employer, that pressure could very well likely be rebounded to the employer; or rather, the member of the chain of authority speaking on the phone with the field employee.
The corporate entity will then fire
both employees for failure to comply with some token "clear statement of principle" regarding following the Highway Code, pretending that the problem has been adequately addressed. (This might even seem like enough for many people, at least on the surface, if history is any indication.)
In and of itself, this will absolutely NOT stop such types of 'accidents', nor will it actually protect either the field employees, or those who speak to the field employees, to say nothing of the typically obvious victims.
If the job either requires, or is significantly enhanced by field employees driving while speaking, a few words in deference to the Highway Code is a pathetic start.
Corporations that demonstrate such an expectation from its employees:
a) should provide adequate additional driver training
b) should also provide guiding protocols and etiquette for both the driver and the non-driver
c) should be held liable for making such demands on their employees without providing them with the skills and techniques to safely do so
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
