3 ms·

It’s a tricky problem, but ultimately the truck drivers drove knowing it was unsafe. If their actions resulted in the death of someone else, then who are you su

It’s a tricky problem, but ultimately the truck drivers drove knowing it was unsafe. If their actions resulted in the death of someone else, then who are you supposed to blame? Nobody, says it was the systems fault, no point punishing anyone? It issues with allowing people like truck drivers to pass liability onto the system they operate within, is that it allows that system to abuse them further. If all truck drivers refused to work when unsafe, and also refused to work if they weren’t paid enough to only work when safe, then the market would naturally move towards increased pay (after all the good still need moving). By creating a space where truck drivers are tempted to break the rules, and drive tired, you artificially reduce the value of their time, and effectively force all a drivers to drive tired into to remain competitive. Ultimately resulting in a downward spiral with every driver driving tired all the time. In smart societies, drivers hours are carefully logged, and audited by state organisations. Drivers are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their logs (using state specified hardware and methodologies), and are punished for driving unsafely, or attempting to hide unsafe driving. With a rigorous audit system, drivers know it question of when not if they caught driving unsafely, completely eradicating any temptation to bend the rules, and making it easy to dangerous and illegal instructions from their employer . Pair this with company level audits to identify companies that seem to be encouraging rules breaking, and punishing them directly, and you can get a system that ensures everyone is held responsible for their action. Nobody can say “they’re just following orders”, and simultaneously empowers everyone to refuse unsafe instructions.

taneq 3y ago
> If their actions resulted in the death of someone else, then who are you supposed to blame? If the driver's boss put a gun to their head and forced them to drive, it would clearly be the boss who was liable. Now replace the gun with the threat of insolvency and their kids living on the street. That's enough to push most people to bend the rules a little and take a few risks. If the boss isn't also held financially (or even criminally) liable then they have no reason (other than their own ethics) not to apply this kind of pressure. > allowing people like truck drivers to pass liability onto the system they operate within, [...] allows that system to abuse them further. If it allows the system to abuse them further, then the liability isn't being properly passed along. The auditing etc. that you suggest will only be implemented by trucking companies if it's in their interests to do so. Making the company (or even the company directors, personally) liable for breaches is the only way to ensure that kind of top-down compliance.
- avianlyric 3y ago
  Auditing, at least in the UK/EU is performed my state regulators via random stops. When trucks are stopped at weight station and inspected, the drivers log is also taken and inspected. Trucks are stopped on a regular basis and employers know to factor in stoppages (maybe 10-30min per stop) because they happen all the time. The regulator moves between inspection points around the country to ensure they’re inspecting a representative sample of trucks. Employers are not required to do anything except provide the mandatory equipment and ensure their drivers stop for inspections.

taneq 3y ago

> If their actions resulted in the death of someone else, then who are you supposed to blame? If the driver's boss put a gun to their head and forced them to drive, it would clearly be the boss who was liable. Now replace the gun with the threat of insolvency and their kids living on the street. That's enough to push most people to bend the rules a little and take a few risks. If the boss isn't also held financially (or even criminally) liable then they have no reason (other than their own ethics) not to apply this kind of pressure. > allowing people like truck drivers to pass liability onto the system they operate within, [...] allows that system to abuse them further. If it allows the system to abuse them further, then the liability isn't being properly passed along. The auditing etc. that you suggest will only be implemented by trucking companies if it's in their interests to do so. Making the company (or even the company directors, personally) liable for breaches is the only way to ensure that kind of top-down compliance.

avianlyric 3y ago
Auditing, at least in the UK/EU is performed my state regulators via random stops. When trucks are stopped at weight station and inspected, the drivers log is also taken and inspected. Trucks are stopped on a regular basis and employers know to factor in stoppages (maybe 10-30min per stop) because they happen all the time. The regulator moves between inspection points around the country to ensure they’re inspecting a representative sample of trucks. Employers are not required to do anything except provide the mandatory equipment and ensure their drivers stop for inspections.