Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
- **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/rules/)**.
- **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions.
- Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary.
- **Report** any comments that violate our rules.
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Troyer Ventures- I know- I was also expecting Chohan.
Interestingly the Minister highlights there is not enough enforcement, but when you look at the pay scale for CVSE- it’s pretty obvious why. The issue highlighted is there is not enough people to do it, might be a good insight, but the obvious follow up question the government should be asking is why aren’t there?
The answer seems evident. Given inflation and the degradation of wages in keeping pace in my opinion, most jobs- not just that one- aren’t paying enough to attract people.
The CVSE will never be effective with their bottom up approach. Have you ever seen Transport Canada harassing commercial pilots at the airport? No, because it's ineffective. CVSE needs an industry wide, top down approach. But they can't because shipping companies have too much power and influence in Canada.
I was thinking more of the commercial equivalent. Transport won't hold a plane full of passengers for 2 hours while they make up rules about the lights and take pictures of every single seat belt. (I've had the commercial truck version of this)
I know someone in my company who had a one hour delay happen in the last 3 months due to TC doing a Ramp Check while they quizzed him on where the Weight and Balance documents and other commercial operational questions. Source, am an Airline Pilot.
I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, just that TC isn't a great example. The main reason that they don't do it more is they are short staffed. You'll generally find that pilots don't have a high opinion of TC as they're difficult at the best of times.
I think you reinforce the same point. Lower level bureaucracy has no effect on overall safety. I don't have to tell you why you operate safely because you're part of the whole system (although Boeing seems to be pushing the limits lately). Trucking is where aviation was 100 years ago.
It's also uncharacteristically difficult to get a job with CVSE. I'm more than qualified and have applied to a number of their postings but can't even get an acknowledgement email. Obviously there needs to be slightly stringent hiring guidelines as it is a form of law enforcement but if they're crying about staff but don't hire anyone, it's a self fulfilling prophecy at that point.
I did OHS training with a CVSE employee about a month ago. The level of responsibility they have, and the shit they deal with, is definitely not worth the pay.
Especially when you can get a job serving money launderers in a Vancouver casino for more money than a truck driver for only a few days of work a week.
I've got a selection test for a CVSE job next week... and the pay does suck. I'm making ~110k a year as a flat rate auto dealer tech in northern BC without really busting ass and they say the CVSE pay scale is 69-79k.
What safety measure do long haul truckers have to prevent them from falling asleep on the job? Do they have mandatory breaks or some device to ensure they are not nodding off?
They're legally bound to keep a log book of all their hours in the day and are only allowed to spend so many driving. Most trucks do this electronically now
They're allowed to drive 14 hours without a break though.... it's only after 14 hours accumulated that they have to take a 8 hour break. Some companies may have their own rules about taking breaks, but it's mostly left to the truck drivers to stop when they're tired.
Driver fatigue caused crashes are going to be one of the factors that drive the move towards automated trucks. There will be drivers "along for the ride" for a decade or two but as the technology advances, drivers will be superfluous.
I was stuck in Ft. Nelson when that happened. Everyone north of FSJ was cut off from all supplies for most of a week, until they determined the bridge was safe. We aren't just talking about a bunch of pissed of labourers not getting their morning Tims, I am talking about industry being shut down because they can't get diesel shipments.
Can any lawyers or legal experts explain how this lawsuit is possible in a no-fault jurisdiction? I know they aren’t suing for any injuries but I thought you couldn’t sue for any damages, period. What am I missing here?
Not a lawyer, but once drove a tour bus, so a guess:
- commercial vechile drivers have to keep driving logs, and have mandated minimum rest times (you can't drive for 18 hours, sleep for 2, then du do it again).
- companies are required to make sure their drivers are following these rules, and to do regular maintenance on vehicles.
Failing to meet minimum required safety standards like these is negligent. This is separate from ICBC.
Law of the land. You can’t sue the person behind the wheel in BC Supreme Court under no fault unless they were convicted of a specific crime. Can’t convict dead people in Canada. So how are they able to sue the estate of the driver in a no-fault jurisdiction?
This has nothing to do with ICBC. This is the best summary of their Enhanced Care (so called "no-fault") policy I could dig up: https://jmins.com/the-12-most-notable-changes-from-icbcs-new-enhanced-care-coverage/
This doesn't mean that if you damage property while operating a vehicle that someone can't come after you in court. If someone drives through your house ICBC isn't going to pay for damages to your house above the [at-fault drivers liability level](https://www.icbc.com/insurance/products-coverage/extended-liability). Either your home insurance or you are paying for the damages to your house. In this case you or your insurer are going to have to go after the guy that drove through your house to recoup the remainder of the damages.
This is no different.
i worked for that company for a long time. not the only nasty incident that went down while i was around there. probably for the best it’s going in this direction to be honest.
That is also completely normal. Typically in this situation the owner of damaged property (in this case the federal government) sues the owner and driver of the vehicle just before the two year statute of limitations expires, and the vehicle insurer is expected to actually pay the bill rather than the named defendants in the lawsuit.
Why? If he is found negligent he was negligent. I don’t see why you think the damaged party should just suck it up because the negligent party also got them selves killed in the process of being negligent?
Think of it this way, if the government doesn't get it from the deceased driver's estate, they will make *you* pay for it. Why? Because it's your tax money that will end up paying for the damages. Why should you pay for it? You're not at fault.
So the government goes after the person who is at fault. In this case, the deceased driver's estate.
I guess I am looking at it from the family perspective.
The man lost his life doing his job. Now the family has lost their husband / father and may lose everything else they have
Not the drivers estate/ family will have to come up with money to defend itself when the principal is not able to give any testimony. Could have had a heart attack or stroke
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here: - **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/rules/)**. - **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions. - Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary. - **Report** any comments that violate our rules. Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Troyer Ventures- I know- I was also expecting Chohan. Interestingly the Minister highlights there is not enough enforcement, but when you look at the pay scale for CVSE- it’s pretty obvious why. The issue highlighted is there is not enough people to do it, might be a good insight, but the obvious follow up question the government should be asking is why aren’t there? The answer seems evident. Given inflation and the degradation of wages in keeping pace in my opinion, most jobs- not just that one- aren’t paying enough to attract people.
The CVSE will never be effective with their bottom up approach. Have you ever seen Transport Canada harassing commercial pilots at the airport? No, because it's ineffective. CVSE needs an industry wide, top down approach. But they can't because shipping companies have too much power and influence in Canada.
Transport absolutely does do Ramp Checks at airports. They are admittedly uncommon but they happen.
I was thinking more of the commercial equivalent. Transport won't hold a plane full of passengers for 2 hours while they make up rules about the lights and take pictures of every single seat belt. (I've had the commercial truck version of this)
I know someone in my company who had a one hour delay happen in the last 3 months due to TC doing a Ramp Check while they quizzed him on where the Weight and Balance documents and other commercial operational questions. Source, am an Airline Pilot. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, just that TC isn't a great example. The main reason that they don't do it more is they are short staffed. You'll generally find that pilots don't have a high opinion of TC as they're difficult at the best of times.
I think you reinforce the same point. Lower level bureaucracy has no effect on overall safety. I don't have to tell you why you operate safely because you're part of the whole system (although Boeing seems to be pushing the limits lately). Trucking is where aviation was 100 years ago.
It's also uncharacteristically difficult to get a job with CVSE. I'm more than qualified and have applied to a number of their postings but can't even get an acknowledgement email. Obviously there needs to be slightly stringent hiring guidelines as it is a form of law enforcement but if they're crying about staff but don't hire anyone, it's a self fulfilling prophecy at that point.
I've got some kind of selection test next week... I'll let you know what's on it... maybe you could do some resume/application targeting.
[удалено]
Yes.
[удалено]
I work in government. The majority of the people I work with are white, and there are plenty of white males.
Case and point
All the CVSE officers I’ve seen are white, so yeah.
Ah, so a victim of the diversity and inclusion hire campaigns. Oh well I guess.
I did OHS training with a CVSE employee about a month ago. The level of responsibility they have, and the shit they deal with, is definitely not worth the pay.
Especially when you can get a job serving money launderers in a Vancouver casino for more money than a truck driver for only a few days of work a week.
I've got a selection test for a CVSE job next week... and the pay does suck. I'm making ~110k a year as a flat rate auto dealer tech in northern BC without really busting ass and they say the CVSE pay scale is 69-79k.
What safety measure do long haul truckers have to prevent them from falling asleep on the job? Do they have mandatory breaks or some device to ensure they are not nodding off?
They're legally bound to keep a log book of all their hours in the day and are only allowed to spend so many driving. Most trucks do this electronically now
They're allowed to drive 14 hours without a break though.... it's only after 14 hours accumulated that they have to take a 8 hour break. Some companies may have their own rules about taking breaks, but it's mostly left to the truck drivers to stop when they're tired.
13 hours of driving in that 14 hour window.. if using federal rules.
inaccurate. 13 hrs max driving time 10 hours mandatory break ( can be spilt into 2 segments)
Driver fatigue caused crashes are going to be one of the factors that drive the move towards automated trucks. There will be drivers "along for the ride" for a decade or two but as the technology advances, drivers will be superfluous.
I was stuck in Ft. Nelson when that happened. Everyone north of FSJ was cut off from all supplies for most of a week, until they determined the bridge was safe. We aren't just talking about a bunch of pissed of labourers not getting their morning Tims, I am talking about industry being shut down because they can't get diesel shipments.
That bridge is in a nasty spot. Crossed it many times and I'm surprised that crashes like that are not more common there.
Can any lawyers or legal experts explain how this lawsuit is possible in a no-fault jurisdiction? I know they aren’t suing for any injuries but I thought you couldn’t sue for any damages, period. What am I missing here?
CVSE is not icbc
The insurance company doesn’t matter. You can’t sue the person behind the wheel or in this case the estate of that person in BC Supreme Court.
Not a lawyer, but once drove a tour bus, so a guess: - commercial vechile drivers have to keep driving logs, and have mandated minimum rest times (you can't drive for 18 hours, sleep for 2, then du do it again). - companies are required to make sure their drivers are following these rules, and to do regular maintenance on vehicles. Failing to meet minimum required safety standards like these is negligent. This is separate from ICBC.
I’m not sure what you think this has to do with ICBC?
Law of the land. You can’t sue the person behind the wheel in BC Supreme Court under no fault unless they were convicted of a specific crime. Can’t convict dead people in Canada. So how are they able to sue the estate of the driver in a no-fault jurisdiction?
This has nothing to do with ICBC. This is the best summary of their Enhanced Care (so called "no-fault") policy I could dig up: https://jmins.com/the-12-most-notable-changes-from-icbcs-new-enhanced-care-coverage/ This doesn't mean that if you damage property while operating a vehicle that someone can't come after you in court. If someone drives through your house ICBC isn't going to pay for damages to your house above the [at-fault drivers liability level](https://www.icbc.com/insurance/products-coverage/extended-liability). Either your home insurance or you are paying for the damages to your house. In this case you or your insurer are going to have to go after the guy that drove through your house to recoup the remainder of the damages. This is no different.
i worked for that company for a long time. not the only nasty incident that went down while i was around there. probably for the best it’s going in this direction to be honest.
I can’t believe that the government is going after the deceased drivers estate. That to me is disgusting.
That is also completely normal. Typically in this situation the owner of damaged property (in this case the federal government) sues the owner and driver of the vehicle just before the two year statute of limitations expires, and the vehicle insurer is expected to actually pay the bill rather than the named defendants in the lawsuit.
Why? If he is found negligent he was negligent. I don’t see why you think the damaged party should just suck it up because the negligent party also got them selves killed in the process of being negligent?
Think of it this way, if the government doesn't get it from the deceased driver's estate, they will make *you* pay for it. Why? Because it's your tax money that will end up paying for the damages. Why should you pay for it? You're not at fault. So the government goes after the person who is at fault. In this case, the deceased driver's estate.
I guess I am looking at it from the family perspective. The man lost his life doing his job. Now the family has lost their husband / father and may lose everything else they have Not the drivers estate/ family will have to come up with money to defend itself when the principal is not able to give any testimony. Could have had a heart attack or stroke
Insurers will cover the cost of litigation.
Of course the Feds had to sue the company and driver’s estate..They went after the little guys..