Safe Speed Forums

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi ... ory=544710

The government is delaying corporate kiliing legislation as it fears ministers could be held liable for deaths eg patients dying in hospitals due to funding decisions directly traceable to white hall.

The question is could this legislation be used against the government in their failure to reduce road casualties; particularly the large reduction in traffic police which must contribute directly to the loss of previous trend?

How do we hold them accountable and not let them bleat on about speeders being the problem not their policies?

I'm very interested in this approach, and have been for some time.

I've discussed the matter with various solicitors and I don't presently hold out much hope. The problem is that manslaughter laws (and their derivatives, and probale future derivatives) are centered around an individual death. With motor accidents having multiple causation factors, it'll be hard or impossible to identify the contribution of policy to any individual death.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I think that the problem with this approach is that it opens a quite enormous can of worms.
Each incident could be traced back to a 'cause and effect' decision taken at a higher level up through any organisation either governmental or private.
How accountable is the sales manager for Enormous Portfolios Inc for the driving of one of his reps placed on a tight schedule?
What about the government when it sends the Armed Forces to war?
Etc etc.

I would hate to see such legislation become the new 'human rights' bill, a good sound idea, fine when properly applied, terrible when abused by the unscrupulus.

I think part of the problem here, as ever, is how the legislation is applied. Misunderstanding or incompetence on the part of those responsible for managing the policies could have dire consequences. You may end up in a situation where the struggling little man trying to keep his small business afloat gets 6-10, where-as MD of Global Inc gets off scot free in the same circumstance because he can afford the right lawyers!