responsible for leased vehicle

TELLIT01

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

I don't think it is good enough to say "If they are found guilty of a traffic offence" because speed limits are sometimes confused. Just the other day I was driving at 5:30 am down a road that last time I looked was 60 mph, and it's now 30 mph, (some 7 years have passed since I used this road daily)

That would be a great defence to the speeding charge "They changed the speed limit some time in the last 7 years but nobody told me, and I didn't see the signs" :rotfl:

It seems reasonable to me that if somebody is involved in an accident / incident caused by breaking traffic, or other, laws then they should be held responsible for any damage. If your Union has also signed up to it, it would seem that they also think it's reasonable.

thebullsback

I think no charges should be made unless a deliberate act of recklessness is proved.
After all the driver is forced to use the vehicle to carry out the employers wants.

Takeaway_Addict

thebullsback wrote: »

I think no charges should be made unless a deliberate act of recklessness is proved.
After all the driver is forced to use the vehicle to carry out the employers wants.

And the employer expects you to do that safely and in an abiding way as agreed by Law.

By your view you should not have to pay for speeding tickets if you didn't speed on purpose.

thebullsback

thebullsback wrote: »

I think no charges should be made unless a deliberate act of recklessness is proved.
.

I think this covers that point.

Takeaway_Addict

thebullsback wrote: »

I think this covers that point.

So you'd expect the employer to pay for your speeding ticket because you accidently recklessly broke the speed limit (and this is possible).

thebullsback

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

So you'd expect the employer to pay for your speeding ticket because you accidently recklessly broke the speed limit (and this is possible).

this discussion is about accidents . Read first post

tomtontom

I'm struggling to think of any RTA offences that would not contain an element of recklessness. Can you elaborate OP under which provision you believe you could commit an offence without being reckless?

thebullsback

tomtontom wrote: »

I'm struggling to think of any RTA offences that would not contain an element of recklessness. Can you elaborate OP under which provision you believe you could commit an offence without being reckless?

mechanical failure

sangie595

thebullsback wrote: »

mechanical failure

Mechanical failure of the vehicle is not the personal fault of a driver unless they know that there is a fault and drive the vehicle anyway. So it wouldn't count.

thebullsback wrote: »

I think no charges should be made unless a deliberate act of recklessness is proved

The employer isn't saying recklessness. They are saying that if you have ignored the law of the land in respect of your driving, and cause damage to the vehicle or any other damage to people or property as a result, then it will be your responsibility. Just because you are forced to use the vehicle doesn't suggest that you should break the law. If you abide by the law, then it won't be a problem.

tomtontom

thebullsback wrote: »

mechanical failure

Mechanical failure, unless as a result of neglect, is not going to result in an offence under the RTA.

Perhaps you should read up on the law in question? You don't appear to understand what you are moaning about.