Could this be a deterrent for car drivers to stop causing unnecessary accidents/incidents on motorways?
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19833237
How? It’s never stopped them before.
When I worked on recovery we would regularly present bills running into £1000’s, we’d often let farmers or householders tag damage to fences, walls etc onto our invoices.
They reckon a fatal incident costs in the region of £1million !
I don’t think the cost of repairing the road is a deciding factor on whether someone has an accident or not
Why isn’t it surprising that private companies are trying to make as much money as possible out of the general public - nothing much changes does it? It’s interesting the bit about if the charges are challenged they are often reduced or not pursued - something to bear in mind if anyone does get caught out.
If you’ve been billed for “damage more than the value of the car”, then how exactly does that get enforced against someone who then says “You’re taking the ■■■■, bud, and I ain’t paying pound one of THAT!”… 
I wouldn’t have thought the debt would be backed up by a court, as it was done without consent. I don’t think anyone would have given the go-ahead for stuff to be done “off the insurance books” if they thought it was going to come in at THAT kind of amount?!
Sounds like a Hawkeye style walkaway don’t it?
The worst they can do is steal your car. 
How can a fatal accident “come in at a million” when a standard no quibble payout even of 6 figures to victim’s family(s) does not exist?
Sounds like they intend tagging it onto the Co-op funeral bill don’t it?
(1) Pinewood Coffin £1200.00
(2) Service £250.00
(3) Scrape-Up £3000.00
(4) Disbursements £300.00
(5) Car(s) £750.00
(6) Fuel £450.00
I meant like the £60/3points thing is meant to deter us from speeding right so why not a similar thing ie £250/500 for causing an accident or damage to street furniture, instead of being done for due care & attention etc, authorities would make more £££ & people might think for a change…!?
tallyman:
Why isn’t it surprising that private companies are trying to make as much money as possible out of the general public - nothing much changes does it? It’s interesting the bit about if the charges are challenged they are often reduced or not pursued - something to bear in mind if anyone does get caught out.
Exactly, and look into that article, she was charged for “inspection” which included tipper hire…
Do they really need to hire a tipper to do inspection?
And apart of that I was under impression that maintenance companies are paid to do their job already…
i think it wrong on all accounts…its called an accident where all human at end of day and we make mistakes
only time i see a bill being presented would be in cases of drink or drug driving, thefts unisured etc people actually breaking the law not for a accident by innocent motorist who pays there tax, insurance and mots etc to stay legal
I can’t find it but there was similar case in Poland - guy crashed on A4 motorway and Stalexport, motorway operator tried to charge him for damage. Guy went to court and it was ruled, that they cannot, because they are paid for maintaining the motorway and cleaning after the accident is included in this…
So I am sure there should be something like that in Amey’s contract as well?
Pimpdaddy:
Could this be a deterrent for car drivers to stop causing unnecessary accidents/incidents on motorways?
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19833237
Probably in the same way it would stop truck drivers causing unnecessary accidents
Just another example of ripoff britain,thieving toerags.
regards dave.
In response to the title of this thread…
Do you think it will deter so called “Professional drivers” from laying their vehicles on their sides, jack knifing and skidding with their big ghastly tyres? 
£60 a 3 points isn’t a deterrant to people who (a) have the fine paid by the firm/are getting paid so much £60 is loose change, and (b) 3 points means nothing if the company is paying that persons £3000 insurance renewal on the company expense sheet each year.
Serious offenders should have their car taken away and crushed. That might upset the company enough not to give them another car, or at least the insurers might refuse to cover that particular person!
Either way, it’s all about “who covers the liability”. If it isn’t the offender, then they’re not going to stop offending are they? 
Job Interview:
Boss: "Ok Mr Smythe-Ptang, the job is all but in the bag for you. Just one final question. How much is your car insurance renewal quote?"
S-P "Three grand guv."
Boss: "Oh. I’m sorry to inform you then that you’ve actually failed this appointment interview, as this prestige establishment does not employ tossers who think they’re going to carry on getting away with murder with THIS firm. I wish you every success in signing on for your future. Now, off you go, and shut the door behind you!" :twisted:
Could this be a deterrent for car drivers
drivers would be more likely to crash then abscond, then report the car stolen.
and when the police turn up at your address, you could always say “you lost your limb, falling down the stairs” 
Bobbies being that intelligent they’d believe that…