I.C.B.C. sues maintenance contractor for damage to vehicles!

[JLM]

This raises several issues, such as who is ultimately at fault for damage to vehicles caused by road conditions? This is a highway where winter conditions can prevail for about 6 months of the year. Most drivers on it realize that and the conditions are posted at each end on an electronic bulletin board as well as on line. While speeds of 90- 100 kmh are appropriate for summer conditions there, they definitely aren't in winter. Another issue is the maintenance contractor. I know our highways were better maintained back in the days (prior to 1987) when the Highways Ministry did the maintenance. While for most services I prefer the private sector, the same doesn't hold true for safety issues, as you can not put safety and profits into the same equation or someone is going to die. While I think the contractor may be partly responsible I think the final onus lies with the driver..............drive according to conditions.

ICBC sues highway maintenance company over potholes - British Columbia - CBC News

 

[taxslave]

The problem is more with the way MoH sets the funding than with the contractor.

 

[JLM]

The problem is more with the way MoH sets the funding than with the contractor.

If I was a contractor and the funding wasn't set properly I wouldn't bid on it. I assume the amount allotted and the provisions for extra funds were agreed on by both sides.

 

[L Gilbert]

lol MoH provides some $6M+ here for maintenance and I know that it doesn't cost that much but the contractors manage to use it up anyway. Plowtruck drivers here don't even bother to get out and put chains on when they are necessary. Some go to sand a stretch of road on a hill and as soon as they start to spin out, they leave instead of turning around and sand while backing up.
That's another thing; sanding. Roads aren't sanded here anymore, they are gravelled, which manages to cause loads of windshield damage. Who's on the hook for that? Drivers who pay road taxes and insurance premiums.

 

[JLM]

lol MoH provides some $6M+ here for maintenance and I know that it doesn't cost that much but the contractors manage to use it up anyway. Plowtruck drivers here don't even bother to get out and put chains on when they are necessary. Some go to sand a stretch of road on a hill and as soon as they start to spin out, they leave instead of turning around and sand while backing up.
That's another thing; sanding. Roads aren't sanded here anymore, they are gravelled, which manages to cause loads of windshield damage. Who's on the hook for that? Drivers who pay road taxes and insurance premiums.

Yep, maintenance has definitely gone down hill since it was privatized, including less garbage removal and I have a feeling the catch basin and culvert cleaning doesn't get as much attention.

 

[L Gilbert]

Yep, maintenance has definitely gone down hill since it was privatized, including less garbage removal and I have a feeling the catch basin and culvert cleaning doesn't get as much attention.

Well, I was kind of thinking that drivers get it in the neck for something that's ultimately the gov't's fault.

 

[JLM]

Well, I was kind of thinking that drivers get it in the neck for something that's ultimately the gov't's fault.

Maybe but drivers DO have to drive according to road and weather conditions- road conditions Gov't has SOME control over, weather conditions no control. I know even when I'm driving at the speed limit about 75% of vehicles over take me. I wonder how many of those vehicles hit the pot hole because they were following too close to see it in time. Contractor should have definitely had it signed as soon as it became apparent.

 

[L Gilbert]

Maybe but drivers DO have to drive according to road and weather conditions- road conditions Gov't has SOME control over, weather conditions no control. I know even when I'm driving at the speed limit about 75% of vehicles over take me. I wonder how many of those vehicles hit the pot hole because they were following too close to see it in time. Contractor should have definitely had it signed as soon as it became apparent.

Yeah, and whose responsibility is the contractor? Who hired the contractor?

 

[damngrumpy]

Interesting, I think the people who designed the Port Man Bridge should pay
for damage to vehicles during the ice storm that landed on cars. Pot holes
why not. ICBC opens the door to these issues being resolved with compensation.
Private companies wanted that business and they got it. Now they should be
expected to provide service for the amount they contracted for. If its not enough
its the companies fault for bidding too low. I have no sympathy for them at all and
they should be held responsible.

 

[JLM]

Interesting, I think the people who designed the Port Man Bridge should pay
for damage to vehicles during the ice storm that landed on cars. Pot holes
why not. ICBC opens the door to these issues being resolved with compensation.
Private companies wanted that business and they got it. Now they should be
expected to provide service for the amount they contracted for. If its not enough
its the companies fault for bidding too low. I have no sympathy for them at all and
they should be held responsible.

I think there is a bit of bullsh*t on all sides, the Gov't, I.C.B.C., the contractor and the driver!

 

[karrie]

They should not be able to sue over damage to vehicles caused by normal wear and tear on the roads if the roads are being maintained in a timely manner. But, there are times where road conditions are NOT normal wear and tear, or not normal weather related changes.

For example, for almost a year when I was driving between Grande Prairie and Fort St John, I was glad to be in a 3/4 ton, because the road had sunk down Taylor hill, and there was a spot where the road dropped almost a full foot. It was a jarring drop, even in my pickup, and if someone smashed their car up, I think it's fully within the insurance company's right to go after the ****ty road crews who weren't putting asphalt transitions in.

 

[JLM]

Upon giving this subject some further thought, there may be one more place to put some of the blame, the contractor who built that stretch of road in the first place. Many, many years ago while working on a project near Beaver Cove (south of Port McNeill) a 5' deep hole appeared in the middle of the road, in a matter of moments. I'm not sure what the exact cause of that particular episode, but it likely boils down to poor compaction during construction or even more likely water getting into the sub grade, the causes of which could be several- cracks in the pavement, an underground spring etc. The opportunities to place blame are endless, BUT there is a slight chance no one is to blame. With the volume of traffic on the Coquihalla it's quite feasible 19 vehicles could be damaged before the contractor (who could be 30 miles away in Hope) could be notified and address the situation. I think I.C.B.C. should suck it up and draw it out of their investment fund.

Interesting, I think the people who designed the Port Man Bridge should pay
for damage to vehicles during the ice storm that landed on cars. Pot holes
why not. ICBC opens the door to these issues being resolved with compensation.
Private companies wanted that business and they got it. Now they should be
expected to provide service for the amount they contracted for. If its not enough
its the companies fault for bidding too low. I have no sympathy for them at all and
they should be held responsible.

I'm guessing there is a "special provisions" clause in their contract!

 

[petros]

Interesting, I think the people who designed the Port Man Bridge should pay
for damage to vehicles during the ice storm that landed on cars. Pot holes
why not. ICBC opens the door to these issues being resolved with compensation.
Private companies wanted that business and they got it. Now they should be
expected to provide service for the amount they contracted for. If its not enough
its the companies fault for bidding too low. I have no sympathy for them at all and
they should be held responsible.

The Port Mann could have been coated with a non-ice building surface but that wouldn't be the BC way.

I'm not sure what the exact cause of that particular episode, but it likely boils down to poor compaction during construction or even more likely water getting into the sub grade, the causes of which could be several- cracks in the pavement, an underground spring etc. The opportunities to place blame are endless, BUT there is a slight chance no one is to blame.

use ditches on highways to divert streams to save money on culverts is to blame.

 

[JLM]

The Port Mann could have been coated with a non-ice building surface but that wouldn't be the BC way.

use ditches on highways to divert streams to save money on culverts is to blame.

On modern highway construction diverting streams is theoretically a last resort. But it does often happen, same as replacing swamps and wet lands.

Interesting, I think the people who designed the Port Man Bridge should pay
for damage to vehicles during the ice storm that landed on cars. Pot holes
why not. ICBC opens the door to these issues being resolved with compensation.
Private companies wanted that business and they got it. Now they should be
expected to provide service for the amount they contracted for. If its not enough
its the companies fault for bidding too low. I have no sympathy for them at all and
they should be held responsible.

I'm guessing there is a "special provisions" clause in their contract!

 

[Sal]

ICBC is now suing VSA for $38,000 in damages to the vehicles, claiming the company was aware of the deterioration of the road and the large potholes but failed to warn the public.

But VSA Highway Maintenance says it's not to blame for the damage.
"We have an obligation to make sure that the road is in safe travelling condition and we met that obligation," says spokesman Bob Gilowski

Really, I don't think they met that obligation at all. Large pot holes are NOT safe travelling conditions. There's no denial here regarding the potholes...only a side step...

(around the accusation pothole)

 

[JLM]

Really, I don't think they met that obligation at all. Large pot holes are NOT safe travelling conditions. There's no denial here regarding the potholes...only a side step...

(around the accusation pothole)

You're half right Sal, but potholes CAN appear almost instantly given the conditions and the volume of heavy truck traffic. I would say it all hinges on the duration from when the pothole appeared to when it was addressed. It could reasonably well be an hour or more. Driving at the posted speed in those conditions IS fool hardy.

 

[petros]

I know that here in SK if you get vehicle damage from piss poor roads the municipailty or city is at fault.

 

[taxslave]

The Port Mann could have been coated with a non-ice building surface but that wouldn't be the BC way.

use ditches on highways to divert streams to save money on culverts is to blame.

Not on the road JLM is talking about. Lots of swamp and parts of it are old logging road that they just paved over. Stumps and all.

 

[petros]

Not on the road JLM is talking about. Lots of swamp and parts of it are old logging road that they just paved over. Stumps and all.

That's the BC "good enough" way.

 

[taxslave]

That's the BC "good enough" way.

Used to be. They don't do that anymore. When they built the Island Hwy. they went to the opposite extreme in places. At huge expense.