> 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 d

> 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.