Enforcing obligations

Crucial that views are made known to Department for Transport
 
BLM transport consultant Mike Oliver comments upon the Consultation of Draft Regulation regarding child seat belts in a letter to the editor of routeone magazine. Mike writes in response to a news item on the topic which was published in an earlier edition of the magazine.
 
"It is crucial that as many operators and interested parties as possible make their views known to DFT. Whatever the minister's preferred option, a number of choices are set out in the documentation. One of these is doing nothing further. This is a course DFT will no doubt be urged to follow and will appear the right approach to many. If, however, this is a case of bowing to perceived public pressure and being seen to do something, a realistic alternative to the imposition of an onerous - and almost certainly unworkable - obligation upon operators/drivers needs to be put forward. To put it crudely, if doing nothing is not regarded as a realistic option by DFT, then they will do something.

Personally, I cannot think of any method by which an operator/driver could physically ensure children wear seatbelts throughout a journey. There are, of course, arguments about additional notices, warnings, pre departure checks, video presentations etc., or even not carrying unaccompanied children at all, as well as the responsibility of accompanying adults. Over and above this, the proposals about assignment of responsibility appear fraught with potential confusion and danger. They would certainly give rise to disputes about where the responsibility actually lay in the event of infringement. Further, as a civil penalty is, surprisingly, proposed, what arguments would it lead to about who would be responsible - in whole or in part - for damages arising from injury etc. in the event of breach?

Of underlying concern, in addition to the practical effect of such additional obligations, is the civil penalty and enforcement regime proposed. This would be entirely in the hands of Traffic Commissioners. They would devise the "reasonable steps" an operator must take and impose the penalty in the event of breach. This begs numerous questions. Firstly, Traffic Commissioners are regulators and this proposal would widen their role to that of enforcement - surely the preserve of VOSA, the Police and other agencies. Secondly, does this not heighten the concern over blurring of enforcement and regulatory functions? Who would detect infringements and draw them to the Commissioners' attention? If VOSA and the Police, why should this be dealt with any differently than other seatbelt infringements? The phrase "thin end of the wedge" springs to mind at a time when enforcement staff numbers and budgets are shrinking, but a means of enforcing obligations needs to be found.

Yours faithfully
Mike Oliver
Trans-law