Law & Society

Driver distractions can include talking and texting on a cell phone, driver fatigue, eating and drinking while driving, smoking, applying make-up, allowing pets to travel unharnessed and dealing with unruly passengers. Distracted driving is a serious and life-threatening activity, and is a contributing factor in more than one million car crashes in the United States every year that cause injuries and deaths and cost over $40 billion. Distracted driving is the number one killer of American teen-agers.

Multi-Tasking while Driving
Going through a fast food drive-through and eating and drinking while steering with one hand, admonishing unruly children, texting or talking on a cell phone or reading a map may all seem like innocent and common activities in our busy everyday lives, but these distractions are dangerous and increase your chances of having a serious car accident with injuries.

The act of driving a car is a complicated task involving both physical and mental coordination and reflexes, quick appraisal skills and good judgment. Drivers who have to deal with distractions are participating in risky and dangerous behaviors that endanger everyone on the road. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that distracted drivers are just as deadly as those driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

Tips for Undistracted Driving
The following tips may help you avoid an accident caused by distracted driving:
• Plan your trip ahead of time
• Stow your electronic devices until you get where you are going
• Prepare your children and pets to travel safely
• Eat and drink before you start out on your trip
• Store loose gear that can shift while you are driving
• Make sure your vehicle is travel- ready
• Focus on your driving for your safety, your passengers safety and the safety of others

Despite all the warnings and admonitions in many cities, hateful traffic accidents and deaths are almost a daily occurrence. Some of the country sides are even barricaded with stringent laws to prevent reckless driving. DUI or Driving under the Influence is one most well known law that cause huge penalties for the accused driver. Seattle DUI is strict enough to hamper one’s daily life and affect his/her social standing even. It may suspend your license for three months or so and the police officials can keep you under probation for as long as five years.

So, why such huge accusation when you are really not that drunk according to your sagacity! Traffic police officers have that right to ask you for breathalyzer test and on refusal take you to the police custody. Now, having a capable Seattle DUI attorney in contact, you can immediately come out in bail but remember the charge does not end there. The alcohol impaired drivers are strictly questioned and charged even intensely upon finding repetitive conviction. Mass ignorance and indifference to the social issues is the main reason behind those unfortunate deaths we come through the newspapers almost on every day. Even though the Seattle DUI lawyers help an accused person to come out of the charge and get the penalties reduced, they never encourage the practice of driving being impaired with drugs and alcohol or other means of intoxications.

You should never hold the steering of your car being intoxicated by any means. It is not only you, who will be paying the stiffer penalties and facing all those hassles by the matter but many will run out of their fate due to your indifference. Getting a Seattle DUI lawyer in your favor is not a very big deal. There are a number of online directories available that present a list of Seattle DUI attorneys helping the accused drivers to end up with a considerable negotiation. But, have you ever thought of the victims who are actually suffering your negligence?

According to recent morbidity and mortality reports, the motorcycle wrecks are the major cause of death in traffic hassles. DUI related deaths are so prevalent in United States that even more than 40% people are already been accused by the traffic mishap. Seattle DUI has recently passed Habitual Violator law that provides felony penalties for three consecutive DUI convictions. It is hard to come out of the charges if it has been proved to be your repetitive conviction. Washington DUI attorney are there to help you by all means but in such situation is becomes hard for them to deal as well. So, according to the lawyers, you must always keep your criminal history clean.

In the Seattle DUI schools you will have to sit with the victims and talk to them directly about the mishaps. Here you will get a chance to explain your situation and of course a chance to feel the sufferer’s from a very close proximity.

Section 17(4)(c) of the Amendment Act provides that a claim for loss of income or support, irrespective of the actual loss, is limited to R167 071 per year, regardless of how much money an injured or deceased individual earns or has the potential to earn in the future. This position differs markedly from previous legislation which allowed a victim to claim in full their actual loss of income or support. Furthermore, section 21 of the Amendment Act expresses that no claim for compensation for bodily injuries may be made against the driver or owner of the vehicle that caused the collision, precluding victims from claiming the shortfall in compensation arising from the limitation from the negligent driver.
Protection
The RAF's rationality behind the implementation of such legislation is to protect its limited availability of funds. It is funded by the fuel levy allocated by the Minister of Transport. The RAF is of the opinion that under the previous legislation, due to the fact that everyone paid the same levy, high income earners were receiving incredibly large loss of income or support payments subsidized by lower income earners, which it considers unfair. Instead the RAF maintains that it should be the high income earners who subsidies the compensation paid to lower income earners.

In South Africa the majority of people earn less than R167 071 annually. The RAF expressed that only 1% of all claims exceed R167 071 per year for loss of earnings, and as such, a cap of this nature will only affect a small number of claimants.

An application was launched to challenge the constitutionality of section 17(4)(c) of the Amendment Act by various parties, including the Law Society of South Africa (the applicants).

The applicants contended that the imposition of such a limit is irrational for a number of reasons. Firstly, the cap is introduced in conjunction with a provision which specifically denies the victim’s common law right to claim the residual value form the wrongdoer. They contend that the exclusion of the common law rule does not aid in the protection of the RAF's funds.

The applicants further alleged that the value of the cap applied is irrational, that there is no evidence suggesting how this particular value was reached and what “purpose it intends to serve”.

Top Up Insurance
The RAF has maintained that individuals earning more than R167 071 annually can afford to obtain additional “top up insurance” to compensate them for any additional loss. However, the applicants expressed that it is unfair and irrational to expect individuals to obtain additional cover to protect themselves against the negligence of other drivers; such legislation has little regard to the victim and completely disregards the ability of the wrongdoer to pay compensation. Finally, the applicants contended that such "top up insurance" is not available to the youth who will be disproportionately affected.

The respondents to this application, the RAF and the Minister of Transport, contested the rationality argument in that it would be difficult for the applicants to prove that there is no rational link between section 17(4)(c) of the amended legislation and the object it seeks to achieve; that the cap is rationally connected to protecting the RAF from further financial difficulty; and that it is not irrational in that it promotes equitable payment of compensation.

The application has recently been dismissed in the North Gauteng High Court and the applicant's have sought leave to appeal. At this stage it is advisable to invest in so called "top up insurance". This is available in the form of personal accident insurance, income replacement disability insurance and non-income replacement disability insurance. If in a position where such cover is affordable, it seems that the certainty of being fully compensated after an accident far outweighs the financial burden it requires.