Won't the haulage companies then do what someone's already mentioned on this thread? In other words, when their insurance premiums rise, they'll simply pass the cost on to their customers, instead of making an attempt to fix any safety issue. Fixing any safety issue will just be considered too difficult. Oh yes, they'll no doubt go through the motions of analysing and 'fixing' any safety issues, but will they really do anything about it, given that it costs money to do so?
(Apologies for my cynicisim)
If it were done crudely, yes, I believe you're right. There would have to be incentives to make safe vehicles, and vehicles fully equipped with all effective safety devices, cheaper. A safe vehicle should be cheaper to run than an unsafe one, and I was thinking of using insurance as a means of applying the different costs - costs which reflect more realistically the social price paid - to operators.
Another idea might be to make the Health and Safety at work laws apply to the road, as this is in effect the truck's place of work. Under HS laws, as I understand it, you have an equal responsibility towards self and others. This responsibility is all very well as trucks crawl around the ''considerate constructors''' work site with banksmen ensuring that they're safely navigated past hurdles but to then unleash them on the roads, at higher speeds, with lower surveillance, amidst a public not usually equipped with hard hats and safety boots.....? That's the current madness.
In the end, I suppose, the aim is simply to find effective ways of getting the social cost to be reflected in the operators' costs. Along the lines of the ''polluter pays'' principle. Reduce the risk, reduce the cost.
