DriveSmartBC - Employee Safe Driving Policy

[skidmark]

I was listening to the investigation of a driving complaint unfold the other day. A member of the public had complained about the way a business vehicle was being driven and the constable had asked the dispatcher to inquire about the driver with the business. "He's a pretty bad driver" the dispatcher relayed from the business owner, "he should probably get a ticket."

My first reaction on hearing this was if that's the case, why was the business owner allowing the employee to drive? He clearly knew that his employee was either lacking in driving skill or had personal difficulties with the driving rules. Why take the risk? The employer could be held liable both criminally and civilly if this employee were to cause a collision.

Anyone who employs a driver, large business or small, should have a safe driving policy in effect that employees must signify that they are aware of and are expected to adhere to at all times while operating a business vehicle, whether for work purposes or not. Further, this policy should be even more comprehensive if the employee uses their personal vehicle for work purposes.

A safe driving policy will protect the employee as well. It can spell out when a vehicle is unsafe for work, how it is to be reported, who is expected to repair it and when an employee may acceptably refuse to operate the vehicle.

Risk management is good business.

Reference Links (http://www.drivesmartbc.ca/commercial-vehicles/employee-safe-driving-policy)

[Modelexis]

Maybe the driver has a good driving record and has never been pulled over, because the police are too lazy to take action when they are given complaints (see: do their jobs.)

So the employer cannot reasonably do anything without enough proof, ie ticket history or accident history.

How can you criticize a company for letting dangerous drivers stay employed when your 'company' allows drunk drivers to work desk jobs and retain their employment.

Source: http://www.rcmpwatch.com/officer-caught-driving-drunk-twice-charged/

If we go with your logic, the officer's superiors should be held criminally liable for employing a dangerous/risky employee.

BTW, it's not a coincidence that I found that case relating to a BC officer, I can find an officer from any province, but I wanted to make it more specific to your criminal organization.

"bc officer caught" keyword returns over 12 million hits on google.
But that's not the issue here right? it's blaming others for not having stricter firing policies.

[skidmark]

Originally posted by Modelexis
Maybe the driver has a good driving record

When the employer says that the employee is a bad driver, I would expect that he is basing it on experience.


If we go with your logic, the officer's superiors should be held criminally liable for employing a dangerous/risky employee.

It's not my logic, it's the Criminal Code that says so.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by skidmark
When the employer says that the employee is a bad driver, I would expect that he is basing it on experience.

You are assuming that, how do you know it's not just from various other calls from the public?

[skidmark]

Originally posted by Modelexis


You are assuming that, how do you know it's not just from various other calls from the public?

Wouldn't you call that experience?

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by skidmark
Wouldn't you call that experience?

It's like trying to explain something to a two year old talking to you.