"Ideas for new regulations, where a driver is held to be guilty:"
This is where your idea falls down. One has to define guilty of what.
It cannot be contact alone, because there are many occasions where contact is occasioned by things outside the driver's control.
So the crime, presumably, has to be contact with intent to take advantage.
How does one prove this to the satisfaction of all, surely one can always raise "reasonable doubt" except in the most flagrant examples? Sometimes this discovery of guilt or innocence goes all the way to the National Tribunal and may drag on for months, if not years.
Nor can one rely on the certainty of the observer, camera and observer evidence is often at odds.
Relying on "deciding the truth" and setting draconian punishments on the basis of arbitrary decisions is a recipe for more and more intervention and regulation. To a great extent driving standards are self policing, drivers at all levels have to want not to cause contact and to admit or accept blame when contact is caused. And from personal experience, sometimes that can only be achieved outside the office, rather than inside or in the rule book.
|
|