Further £2m for lorry road safety enforcement

An extra £2million a year will be dedicated to the Government's ongoing drive to enforce road safety law for hauliers, focusing particularly on those undertaking international journeys, Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly announced today.

This will be funded from new measures, planned for introduction next year, which allow inspectors from the Vehicle Operator and Service Agency (VOSA) and the Police to collect on-the-spot penalties from drivers suspected of an offence without a valid British address. VOSA inspectors will also gain the power to issue fixed penalty notices at this time.

Ruth Kelly said:

"This £2m is about making our roads safer and levelling the field across Europe. It will provide a powerful boost to VOSA's enforcement efforts, particularly against drivers who think they can get away with breaking the rules of the road because they do not live in Britain."

It was also announced that DfT will publish a progress report on other ways of delivering more targeted enforcement on foreign vehicles alongside the Pre-Budget Report. This will look at a database covering all foreign hauliers entering and working in the UK. One option under strong consideration is a 'vignette' - a time-based charge for the use of UK roads designed to ensure foreign hauliers help pay for the wear and tear inflicted by their vehicles.

PROCEDURES FOR CLAIMING BENEFITS

Failure to Comply with Time Limits

(1) A person’s failure to comply with a time limit set out in this Part does not disentitle the person to a benefit if the person has a reasonable explanation. O. Reg. 403/96, s. 31 (1).

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the time limits set out in section 51. O. Reg. 403/96, s. 31 (2).

Cost of Examinations

(1) The insurer shall pay the following expenses incurred by or on behalf of an insured person:

1. Reasonable fees charged by a health practitioner for preparing a disability certificate required under section 20, 35 or 37.

2. Fees charged in accordance with a Pre-approved Framework Guideline by a health practitioner for preparing a treatment confirmation form for the purposes of section 37.1.

3. Fees charged in accordance with a Pre-approved Framework Guideline by a member of a health profession for conducting an assessment or examination and preparing a report for the purposes of section 37.1.

4. Reasonable fees charged by a health practitioner for reviewing a treatment plan under section 38, and for approving it if appropriate.

5. Reasonable fees charged by a member of a health profession or a social worker for preparing an application under section 38.2 for approval of an assessment or examination.

6. Reasonable fees charged by a member of a health profession for preparing an assessment of attendant care needs under section 39.

7. Reasonable fees charged by a health practitioner for preparing an application under section 40 for a determination of whether the insured person has sustained a catastrophic impairment.

8. Fees charged for a designated assessment of the insured person.

9. Subject to subsection 24.1 (2), reasonable fees charged by a member of a health profession for consulting with a person who is conducting or has conducted an examination of the insured person under section 42, if the conditions set out in subsection 24.1 (1) are satisfied.

10. Reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with section 42.1 that are charged for an assessment or examination of the insured person and the preparation of a report of the assessment or examination.

11. Reasonable fees, other than fees referred to in any of paragraphs 1 to 10, that are charged by a member of a health profession or a social worker for conducting an assessment or examination and preparing a report if the assessment or examination is reasonably required in connection with a benefit that is claimed or in connection with the preparation of a treatment plan, disability certificate, assessment of attendant care needs or application for the determination of a catastrophic impairment, and,

i. the assessment or examination relates to ancillary goods or services described in section 37.2 and is contemplated by a treatment confirmation form submitted in accordance with section 37.1,

ii. the insured person applied for approval of the assessment or examination either in a treatment plan submitted under section 38 or by way of a separate application submitted under section 38.2, or

iii. The insurer approved the expense or the approval of the insurer is not required by reason of subsection (1.2). O. Reg. 546/05, s. 3 (1).

(1.1) Despite subsection (1), an insurer is not required to pay for an assessment or examination referred to in subparagraph 11 ii of subsection (1) if the expense for the assessment or examination is incurred,

(a) Before the insurer approves the expense;

(b) Before the insurer receives the report of an examination under section 42, if the insurer requires the insured person to be examined under that section; or

(c) Before the insurer receives the report of a designated assessment, in the case of an application for approval of an assessment or examination under section 38.2, if the insured person is required to undergo a designated assessment. O. Reg. 546/05, s. 3 (1).

(1.2) Despite subsection (1.1), the prior approval of an insurer is not required for the following:

1. An assessment or examination for the purposes of preparing a treatment plan under section 38 in circumstances in which an immediate risk of harm to the insured person or a person in the insured person’s care makes obtaining the prior approval of the insurer impractical.

2. Not more than three assessments or examinations for the purposes of preparing a treatment plan under section 38 if not more than one assessment or examination is done by the same person and the cost of each assessment or examination does not exceed $200.

3. An assessment or examination for the purposes of preparing a disability certificate under section 20, 35 or 37 if the cost of the assessment or examination does not exceed $200.

4. Revoked: O. Reg. 546/05, s. 3 (2).

5. An assessment or examination for the purposes of preparing an assessment of attendant care needs under section 39, but not an assessment or examination relating to an impairment that comes within a Pre-approved Framework Guideline unless the Guideline expressly states that the prior approval of the insurer is not required for the assessment or examination.

6. An assessment or examination for the purposes of determining if an insured person has a catastrophic impairment, if the insured person is hospitalized or is in a long-term care facility at the time of the assessment or examination.

7. An assessment or examination conducted after the insurer notifies the insured person that, before the assessment or examination is conducted, the insurer does not require the submission of a treatment plan under section 38 or an application for approval of an assessment or examination under section 38.2.

8. Revoked: O. Reg. 546/05, s. 3 (3).

O. Reg. 281/03, s. 7 (1); O. Reg. 546/05, s. 3 (2, 3).

(1.3)-(1.5) Revoked: O. Reg. 546/05, s. 3 (4).

(1.6) Subject to subsection (4), the insurer shall pay reasonable expenses incurred by or on behalf of an insured person for transportation expenses incurred in transporting the insured person to and from an assessment or examination referred to in subsection (1), including transportation expenses for an aide or an attendant. O. Reg. 281/03, s. 7 (1).

(2) The insurer is not liable under subsection (1) for expenses related to professional services rendered to an insured person that exceed the maximum rate or amount of expenses established under the Guidelines applicable to the claim. O. Reg. 281/03, s. 7 (1).

(2.1) if the Guidelines applicable to the claim establish a range of rates or amounts for expenses related to professional services rendered to an insured person,

(a) the highest rate or amount in the range shall be deemed, for the purpose of subsection (2), to be the maximum rate or amount established under the Guidelines applicable to the claim; and

(b) an insurer that is liable to pay expenses related to the services rendered to the insured person shall not pay less than the lowest amount or rate in the range, unless the insured person’s claim is for less than the lowest amount or rate in the range. O. Reg. 281/03, s. 7 (1).

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the insurer is not liable under subsection (1.6) to pay for expenses related to transportation unless the expenses are authorized by, and are calculated by applying the rates set out in, the Transportation Expense Guidelines published in The Ontario Gazette by the Ontario Insurance Commission or Financial Services Commission of Ontario, as they may be amended from time to time. O. Reg. 403/96, s. 24 (3); O. Reg. 303/98, s. 4 (2); O. Reg. 281/03, s. 7 (2).

(4) The insurer is not liable under subsection (1.6) to pay for expenses related to,

(a) the first 50 kilometers of transportation in the insured person’s automobile to and from an examination or assessment if the examination or assessment relates to an accident that occurred before April 15, 2004; or

(b) The first 50 kilometers of transportation to and from an examination or assessment if the examination or assessment relates to an accident that occurred after April 14, 2004, unless the insured person sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident. O. Reg. 458/03, s. 8.

(5) Vocational assessments referred to in clause 15 (5) (f) are not assessments for the purposes of this section. O. Reg. 281/03, s. 7 (4).

Kelly announces new ways to beat motorway jams

An innovative traffic management system that cuts journey times and helps keep motorways moving is to be extended to other parts of the network, Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly announced today.

Following a successful trial on the M42, new ways of managing motorway traffic - including hard shoulder running - will be implemented as part of a £150m scheme on the motorway box around Birmingham, and a feasibility study will be undertaken to consider if similar schemes could help to beat congestion on other parts of the motorway network.

Ruth Kelly said:

"The M42 trial shows that using innovative thinking to help drivers beat motorway jams really works.

"New traffic management techniques, like hard shoulder running and varying speed limits, offer practical and cost-effective solutions to cutting congestion and I now want to explore whether other motorways could benefit from similarly creative measures.

"Other important benefits are less disruption from road works, reduced environmental impacts, better information for drivers and a faster, more effective response to accidents."

The first six months of the full M42 trial saw significant benefits for motorists, the environment and the economy. Use of the hard shoulder in peak periods saw average journey times fall by more than a quarter on the northbound carriageway and drivers' ability to predict their weekday journey times improved by 27%. Alongside this, overall fuel consumption reduced by 4% and vehicle emissions fell by up to 10%.

Importantly those involved did not feel road safety was compromised - with 84% of drivers saying they felt confident about using the hard shoulder. Alongside this, since the introduction of hard shoulder running the personal injury accident rate has fallen from 5.2 per month to 1.5 per month on this section of the M42.

The Department for Transport will now begin a major study to examine the costs and technical feasibility of extending signalling and traffic management systems on a wider scale as well as looking at innovative ideas for future traffic management.

Attendant Care Benefit

(1) the insurer shall pay an insured person who sustains impairment as a result of an accident an attendant care benefit. O. Reg. 403/96, s. 16 (1).

(1.1) Despite subsection (1), if the accident occurred after April 14, 2004, no attendant care benefit is payable to an insured person whose impairment is a Grade I or Grade II whiplash-associated disorder that comes within a Pre-approved Framework Guideline. O. Reg. 295/07, s. 3.

(2) The attendant care benefit shall pay for all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the insured person as a result of the accident for,

(a) Services provided by an aide or attendant; or

(b) Services provided by a long-term care facility, including a nursing home, home for the aged or chronic care hospital. O. Reg. 403/96, s. 16 (2).

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to expenses for which payment may be obtained under clause 14 (2) (g), 15 (5) (k) or subsection 24 (1.6). O. Reg. 403/96, s. 16 (3); O. Reg. 533/06, s. 2.

(4) The monthly amount payable by the attendant care benefit shall be determined in accordance with Form 1. O. Reg. 403/96, s. 16 (4).

(5) The amount of the attendant care benefit payable in respect of an insured person shall not exceed the amount determined under the following rules:

1. If the accident occurred before October 1, 2003, the amount of the attendant care benefit payable in respect of the insured person shall not exceed,

i. $3,000 per month, if the insured person did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident, or

ii. $6,000 per month, if the insured person sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident.

2. If the accident occurred on or after October 1, 2003 and the optional medical, rehabilitation and attendant care benefit referred to in section 27 has not been purchased and does not apply to the insured person, the amount of the attendant care benefit payable in respect of the insured person shall not exceed,

i. $3,000 per month, if the insured person did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident, or

ii. $6,000 per month, if the insured person sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident.

3. If the accident occurred on or after October 1, 2003 and the optional medical, rehabilitation and attendant care benefit referred to in section 27 has been purchased and applies to the insured person, the amount of the attendant care benefit payable in respect of the insured person shall not exceed the monthly limit under subsection 27 (5). O. Reg. 281/03, s. 5; O. Reg. 458/03, s. 6 (2).

Gross Income Calculations

(1) An insured person who is eligible for an income replacement benefit under paragraph 1 of section 4 and who was not self-employed at any time during the four weeks before the accident shall designate one of the following time periods:

1. The four weeks before the accident.

2. The 52 weeks before the accident. O. Reg. 403/96, s. 8 (1).

(2) An insured person who is eligible for an income replacement benefit under paragraph 1 of section 4 and who was self-employed at any time during the four weeks before the accident shall designate one of the following time periods:

1. The 52 weeks before the accident.

2. The last fiscal year completed before the accident for the business in which the person was self-employed, if the business completed a fiscal year before the accident. O. Reg. 403/96, s. 8 (2).

(3) For the purpose of determining the amount of an insured person’s income replacement benefit, the gross annual income from employment for a person who qualifies for a benefit under paragraph 1 of section 4 shall be deemed to be the following amount:

1. In the case of a person who designated the four weeks before the accident under paragraph 1 of subsection (1), the person’s gross income from employment for the four weeks before the accident, multiplied by 13.

2. In the case of a person who designated the 52 weeks before the accident under paragraph 2 of subsection (1) or paragraph 1 of subsection (2), the person’s gross income from employment for the 52 weeks before the accident.

3. In the case of a person who designated the last fiscal year completed before the accident under paragraph 2 of subsection (2), the person’s gross income from employment for that fiscal year. O. Reg. 403/96, s. 8 (3); O. Reg. 462/96, s. 5.

(4) For the purpose of determining the amount of an insured person’s income replacement benefit, the gross annual income from employment for a person who qualifies for a benefit under paragraph 2 of section 4 shall be deemed to be the person’s gross income from employment for the 52 weeks before the accident. O. Reg. 403/96, s. 8 (4).

(5) For the purpose of determining the amount of an insured person’s income replacement benefit, the gross annual income from employment for a person who qualifies for a benefit under paragraph 3 of section 4 shall be deemed to be the gross income payable under the contract of employment, extrapolated to reflect an annual income. O. Reg. 403/96, s. 8 (5).

(6) A determination of gross income under subsection (3) or (4) shall include any benefits received under the Employment Insurance Act (Canada) or a predecessor of that Act in respect of the relevant period. O. Reg. 403/96, s. 8 (6).

(7) If a person qualifies for an income replacement benefit under paragraph 1 or 2 of section 4 and also qualifies under paragraph 3 of section 4, the person’s gross annual income from employment shall be determined under subsection (3) or (4), as the case may be, until the day he or she would have been entitled to begin employment under the contract described in paragraph 3 of section 4, and thereafter the person’s gross annual income from employment shall be determined in accordance with subsection (5). O. Reg. 403/96, s. 8 (7).

Bravery of War pilots to be recognised

Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly has today announced that a badge of recognition will be created for the surviving pilots and other men and women who served in the Air Transport Auxiliary during World War II.

The badge will recognise the contribution that the men and women of the Air Transport Auxiliary (ATA), including the female pilots known as the 'Spitfire Women', who delivered over 300,000 aircraft between factories and front line airfields.

The ATA was a civilian unit founded in 1938, and included ground school instructors, ground engineers, crash rescue teams, nurses and doctors, administration staff and Air Cadets. The group had a remarkable record and very few aircraft were lost or damaged. Tragically 173 pilots and 8 flight engineers lost their lives including Amy Johnson, the pioneering female civil aviator. By 1945 the group had 650 pilots from 22 countries around the world including from as far afield as Chile, South Africa and the United States.

Ruth Kelly said:

"This badge will be a fitting honour to commemorate the bravery of all the men and women of the ATA and to ensure that those who served are remembered and given the recognition they deserve."

The Prime Minister Gordon Brown said:

"It is right we have recognition for those women who did so much to protect and defend the airports and other military services during the war, and we will go ahead with the proposal of an award for these women."

Officials from the Department for Transport will work closely with representatives of the Air Transport Auxiliary to ensure that the contribution of all those who served are given fitting recognition.