The price of reckless driving

RUSSIAN dashcam videos on YouTube suggest driving in the country is not something for beginners.

Some of the videos are not for the faint-hearted to view.

Dashcam videos became widespread in Russia due to unsafe driving, low trust in law enforcement and rampant insurance fraud, so drivers needed reliable evidence to protect themselves in disputes.

Dashcams were cheap, legally permitted and quickly became a norm, reinforced by viral online sharing of dramatic road footage.

Dashcams have also gained acceptance in Malaysia with some road users due to the high number of accidents in the country and where drivers and pedestrians often ignore the rules of the road.

You only have to look at the collection of Malaysian dashcam videos available on the same video sharing platform to see that.

Drivers beating red lights or not stopping at crossroads, lorries or buses speeding, and motorcyclists doing stunts on their bikes and driving against traffic leading to accidents and near misses are abound.

Drunk drivers and speeding are another concern.

Recent horrific fatal accidents caused by speeding drivers, some under the influence of alcohol, are particularly distressing to view and have led to calls to tighten laws.

Under increasing public pressure, the government is in the process of doing that.

News reports say the laws for traffic-related offences have been tightened to ensure offenders are not only punished through imprisonment, fines or disqualification from driving but are also held responsible for the impact of their actions on victims and their families.

The Cabinet has agreed in principle to allow courts to order traffic offenders to pay compensation directly to accident victims or their next of kin.

Under the new proposed amendments to the Road Transport Act 1987, the vehicle owner/offending driver is liable to pay the court-ordered compensation.

The award of compensation by criminal court is not covered under the existing standard motor insurance.

The criminal court’s award would serve as a punitive, criminal penalty, structurally separate liability under standard insurance claims.

Under the proposal, the amount of compensation will not be fixed administratively by the government but determined by the courts based on the facts and merits of each case, including the seriousness of the offence, injury or loss of life, the losses suffered and the offender’s ability to pay.

So the next serious accident one gets into could potentially bankrupt the person, more so if it results in the death/permanent disability of a victim who is also a family breadwinner.

A legal professional says unlike civil lawsuits where a method of calculation based on past legal precedents on personal injury civil case laws is applied regardless of an individual’s personal wealth, this criminal penalty specifically mandates courts to factor in the offender’s financial status.

Courts will assess the driver’s income, assets, and overall means to ensure the penalty is severe enough to act as a deterrent but realistic enough to actually be paid out.

So if the driver is a multi-millionaire, he could pay more as compared to a lower wage earner in the bottom 40 (B40) group.

If the driver is a minor, the penalty could be borne by the parents, though the criminal punishment will be served by the minor.

And how would the court determine damages if there are more than one victim – say people in two or three cars, a motorcycle or a bus/lorry are injured or killed?

All are entitled to claim compensation from the offender.

The offender will be liable to pay the determined compensation to all the victims.

The compensation applies to death, permanent disability and personal injuries to the victim.

Imagine what this will do in the creation of ambulance-chasing lawyers?

The victims will have to file separate civil suits to claim compensation, which may take time.

The amendments do not preclude the victims from filing separate civil suits to claim a larger amount of damages payable by the offender.

Current motor insurance policies typically cover civil claims, not criminal restitution.

But driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol is under the personal volition of the offender, insurance may not cover such financial risks.

Unless insurers introduce new premium-based products, offenders may face liabilities entirely out of pocket.

This gap exposes drivers to unprecedented financial risk, particularly those in the B40 income group.

As the government is intent on pushing through these laws, there needs to be a balance between some form of adequate compensation that needs to be paid for the victims or next of kin and not financially crippling the offender and family.

Maybe worth considering is a modified version of Japan’s compulsory automobile liability insurance system that mandates compulsory insurance that provides no-fault payouts for death or injury, layered with voluntary coverage for higher claims.

The proposed mechanism may address additional insurance cover with a further additional premium for such eventualities.

This will require the buy-in of local insurers.

It’s not clear at this point of time, as the amendments and guidelines are not yet been passed in the Malaysian parliament.

Before this comes into law, the government should step up investment into infrastructure like closed-circuit televisions and other recording devices at sensitive spots.

Enforcement also needs to be strengthened.

We cannot allow nine million motorcyclists – roughly 25% of the population – to continue riding without valid licences.

These road users make up the majority of victims in road accidents and there needs to be some enforcement of defensive riding by motorcyclists given the proclivity by some in zooming in traffic and disobeying traffic laws. Repeat offenders need to be blacklisted.

The public needs to have a higher civic sense on the road to improve road discipline.

These will take time and resources.

Accidents will happen even if the person is following the traffic rules.

Hence, dashcams and other recording devices may become more valuable for evidence in disputes and accidents, more so with the proposed personal liability risk in criminal court’s compensation awards.