We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Business Car website. However, if you would like to, you can change your cookies at any time
The start point for the best source of fleet information |
I read the results of ALD Automotive's recent survey with interest. It says that of 200 drivers questioned, 49% have paid or would expect to pay their own car parking fines, but only 17% have paid or would expect to pay towards vehicle damage and 15% towards end of contract charges.
Does that mean that almost half of drivers agree that if they did the crime, they must pay the fine? If that's the case, why do so few expect to pay towards reversing into a fixed object for example?
After all, if no other vehicle was involved then why should their employers cough-up for their misdemeanour?
It also sparks an interesting debate about company vehicle policies. When it comes to subjects such as drinking and driving, using mobile phones at the wheel, driving while tired etc, most company policies provide strict guidelines for drivers - both for safety reasons and to protect the company legally if a driver causes an accident.
But, if we ignore the legal aspect, does this mean if it's not written in the policy then a driver could claim that his or her employer had never told them not to do something.
Driver: "You never told me not to park illegally or drive my car into walls, so why should I foot the bill?"
Employer: "That's common sense, you should know that if you park illegally you'll get a ticket and if you drive into a wall you'll damage the vehicle."
Driver: "But I also know it's illegal to drink and drive, and you've told me not to do that in the policy, why didn't you mention parking and driving into walls?"
The reality in my mind is that this is yet another example of how we mollycoddle drivers far too much, and health and safety law does not help by placing so much responsibility on the shoulders of companies.
In my mind, if a driver gets a parking fine, they pay for it. Likewise, if a driver hits a fixed object, or brings the vehicle back after three years covered in damage which is not deemed as fair wear and tear, they pay for it.
Why wouldn't they? It's ludicrous to think that a family can have two cars, one their own and the other a company vehicle, and if they drive them both into a wall they only suffer the costs against the one they own. If anyone can justify the common sense of this, I'm all ears!
Follow BusinessCar on TWITTER.
BusinessCar magazine ©2019
Business Car Magazine © 2020 | Business Car is part of NS Media Group.
