I was on my way into work this a.m. moving eastbound on the QEW/403 at the Ford plant and got hit with a mindfield of debris coming from a dump truck about 5-6 car lengths ahead of me. Two chips on the drivers' side of the windshield and possible other damage occurred as a result of this. It was an insane amount of debris, small, and I couldn't tell if it was metal or rocks, or both. I got the license #, reported it to OPP, and got an occurrence number. Officer told me that if I do not get contacted by the company (I tracked them down and called them - and officer confirmed the license # was registered to this company), he will treat it as a fail to remain. It is going to cost me a minimum of $90.00 to get these fixed and I want them to pay. I do not want to go through insurance because it will STILL cost me $90.00 due to my deductible. I want to be reimbursed. Do you know any recourse I may have if they decide to play hardball and play the "Too bad, that's what insurance is for" card? It really isn't in their best interest to do so, and what is the repercussions of the OPP treating this as a Fail to Remain if they, as the officer said, decide to be jerks about this and not call me back or pay? The officer called the company too, and told me that he would call me back this afternoon to find out if I have heard from this company's logistic's manager. If I haven't by then, he'll proceed with the fail to remain. I already left a message with the logistic's manager of this company at about 8am this morning. Should I call back, wait, or what? I'm just so sick of unsecure loads doing damage like this. I've already had to fix my windshield for a chip when this happened a couple of years ago. Same scenario, but not a mindfield of debris. I never reported it or made a fuss. This time, I am, if not for the amount of debris, then for the fact that it is not fair that I get stuck with the bill for damage caused by someone else's failure to secure their cargo. That's THEIR responsibility. If the first rock/debris would've hit my windshield and not the top of my car, my windshield would've been shattered and I probably not in a condition to be typing this out this morning. :shock:
Hey now, that's not very nice, Squishy. :( There is a serious hazard to it because there is no way to safely do so. They have to get up and chisel the ice, which can get thick, off the top of the trailer. Employment legislation prohibits workers from climbing without approved safety equipment. My friend and her hubby have owned a trucking company for 16 years (was her hubby's Dad's) and the ice falling is treated much the same way as debris falling from the truck, unless someone is seriously hurt or killed, or major calamity such as multi-vehicle accidents occurs, and the discretion lies with the officer to broadly interpret legislation. In those cases, charges are often laid. There are currently no laws on the books relating directly to this, except for Quebec. Private members' bills have shown up often only to die off, and usually happen when such a calamity happens as a result of falling ice. It's a vastly under-appreciated hazard, largely ignored by both the commercial trucking industry and the government. Some of these ice sheets can weight in the tonnes.
Off-topic, but while Marquisse is gone, shh! - aren't there workplace safety rules against truckers clearing their trailer tops of ice? It's above the height limit where you need to be tied off, and there is no place to tie off to. At least that's what I've heard.
Hey now, that's not very nice, Squishy.
There is a serious hazard to it because there is no way to safely do so. They have to get up and chisel the ice, which can get thick, off the top of the trailer. Employment legislation prohibits workers from climbing without approved safety equipment.
My friend and her hubby have owned a trucking company for 16 years (was her hubby's Dad's) and the ice falling is treated much the same way as debris falling from the truck, unless someone is seriously hurt or killed, or major calamity such as multi-vehicle accidents occurs, and the discretion lies with the officer to broadly interpret legislation. In those cases, charges are often laid. There are currently no laws on the books relating directly to this, except for Quebec. Private members' bills have shown up often only to die off, and usually happen when such a calamity happens as a result of falling ice. It's a vastly under-appreciated hazard, largely ignored by both the commercial trucking industry and the government. Some of these ice sheets can weight in the tonnes.
Been lurking on this thread with interest -- like most drivers I too have been hit by stuff flying off trucks (including an aerodynamic 4'x4' piece of corrugated sheet metal two or three years ago), but figured it wasn't worth making a fuss because trucking companies are pretty much immune until somebody is injured or killed. As Off_camber says, "Trucking companies get this ALL the time." Ho hum, and what's for dinner? Ice, though, I have so far seen only flying, not hitting anything but the roadway. Is it also just something that truckers can routinely ignore?
Marquisse wrote:
ice falling is treated much the same way as debris falling from the truck.
Been lurking on this thread with interest -- like most drivers I too have been hit by stuff flying off trucks (including an aerodynamic 4'x4' piece of corrugated sheet metal two or three years ago), but figured it wasn't worth making a fuss because trucking companies are pretty much immune until somebody is injured or killed. As Off_camber says, "Trucking companies get this ALL the time." Ho hum, and what's for dinner?
Ice, though, I have so far seen only flying, not hitting anything but the roadway. Is it also just something that truckers can routinely ignore?
Hi Proper1, Yes, they do get it all the time but that does not make them immune, nor does the fact that insurance provide for the repair (actually, unless there is damage over $1000, it still comes out of our pocket) under comprehensive mean that we cannot go after them civilly (providing it is not frivolous and the damage is quite extensive). It doesn't make sense to bother if the repair/damage amount is relatively minor, but on principle, it is NOT at all fair to expect motorists to suck it up if the debris comes from their truck. Ice can cause serious accidents and death. A vast majority of the industry ignores it, and a good percentage of drivers have stories to tell about the damage caused by sheets of ice flying off of their trailers. Here's some articles that expand on the issue: http://www.todaystrucking.com/features. ... ocID=21462 http://www.truckinjurylawyerblog.com/20 ... e-tragedy/
Hi Proper1, Yes, they do get it all the time but that does not make them immune, nor does the fact that insurance provide for the repair (actually, unless there is damage over $1000, it still comes out of our pocket) under comprehensive mean that we cannot go after them civilly (providing it is not frivolous and the damage is quite extensive). It doesn't make sense to bother if the repair/damage amount is relatively minor, but on principle, it is NOT at all fair to expect motorists to suck it up if the debris comes from their truck.
Ice can cause serious accidents and death. A vast majority of the industry ignores it, and a good percentage of drivers have stories to tell about the damage caused by sheets of ice flying off of their trailers.
For damage under $1000, what do you mean by it coming out of our pocket? Is that because of your deductible? I still think you have a good chance at pushing them to cover it under DCPD with the plate and police reports. It's like someone backing into your vehicle in a parking lot - it's under comprehensive if no one saw it happen, but if you have a plate then it is covered under DCPD. The insurance company just wants to know who to go after.
Marquisse wrote:
Hey now, that's not very nice, Squishy.
For damage under $1000, what do you mean by it coming out of our pocket? Is that because of your deductible? I still think you have a good chance at pushing them to cover it under DCPD with the plate and police reports. It's like someone backing into your vehicle in a parking lot - it's under comprehensive if no one saw it happen, but if you have a plate then it is covered under DCPD. The insurance company just wants to know who to go after.
Yeah, my deductible is higher than the cost will be for repairing the windshield, even if it turns out I need a new one. If I opt to fix the dents (especially the major one overtop my windshield), it may take it over the deductible. If that's the case, I will go the route you are talking about. Easier on the nerves, I've paid for the coverage, and hell I've not made a claim since 1996 when a car t-boned mine while mine was parked. However, if my insurance company doesn't budge and keeps it under comprehensive, I'll have to shell out anything under $1000.00 in deductible. That is what really angers me. It wasn't my fault. I wasn't travelling too close even by the wildest stretch of imagination, and I know it came from the bin on the truck. IMO, it was negligence on the part of the operator as, although they claim the bin was empty, there was obviously enough debris to catapault it from the bin and with such velocity that it hit me - and kept hitting me. It was most certainly not kicked up from the road. So, it's only if I am stuck with paying hundreds out of my own pocket to fix my car that I will get litigious, and especially so if my insurance company doesn't recategorize it. I already have a police report that, for the purposes of insurance, classified it as a "fail to remain". The Officer did that because of the extent of damages and he knew I would have a problem with the transport company taking responsibility. I find out tomorrow exactly what it is going to cost to repair. I am crossing my fingers that they can repair my windshield and not have to replace it, and my brother is going to take a look at the damage on the body of my vehicle tomorrow to advise me how to fix the damage.
Yeah, my deductible is higher than the cost will be for repairing the windshield, even if it turns out I need a new one. If I opt to fix the dents (especially the major one overtop my windshield), it may take it over the deductible. If that's the case, I will go the route you are talking about. Easier on the nerves, I've paid for the coverage, and hell I've not made a claim since 1996 when a car t-boned mine while mine was parked.
However, if my insurance company doesn't budge and keeps it under comprehensive, I'll have to shell out anything under $1000.00 in deductible. That is what really angers me. It wasn't my fault. I wasn't travelling too close even by the wildest stretch of imagination, and I know it came from the bin on the truck. IMO, it was negligence on the part of the operator as, although they claim the bin was empty, there was obviously enough debris to catapault it from the bin and with such velocity that it hit me - and kept hitting me. It was most certainly not kicked up from the road.
So, it's only if I am stuck with paying hundreds out of my own pocket to fix my car that I will get litigious, and especially so if my insurance company doesn't recategorize it. I already have a police report that, for the purposes of insurance, classified it as a "fail to remain". The Officer did that because of the extent of damages and he knew I would have a problem with the transport company taking responsibility. I find out tomorrow exactly what it is going to cost to repair. I am crossing my fingers that they can repair my windshield and not have to replace it, and my brother is going to take a look at the damage on the body of my vehicle tomorrow to advise me how to fix the damage.
I hauled B-Train flat decks for many years, and the rule of thumb was if it was 3 feet off the deck of the trailer a CSA approved fall arrest/restraint was mandatory under WSIB. as for a driver going to the top of a Trailer which a regular 48' or 53' Van trailer is 13'6"---thats a no no. However, quite a few trucking companies have a systym where the driver drives under a rack that scrapes ice and snow off the top of the trailer
Squishy wrote:
Off-topic, but while Marquisse is gone, shh! - aren't there workplace safety rules against truckers clearing their trailer tops of ice? It's above the height limit where you need to be tied off, and there is no place to tie off to. At least that's what I've heard.
I hauled B-Train flat decks for many years, and the rule of thumb was if it was 3 feet off the deck of the trailer a CSA approved fall arrest/restraint was mandatory under WSIB.
as for a driver going to the top of a Trailer which a regular 48' or 53' Van trailer is 13'6"---thats a no no.
However, quite a few trucking companies have a systym where the driver drives under a rack that scrapes ice and snow off the top of the trailer
Hi everyone. I'm asking for a friend who has a question of interpretation.
He was ticketed for using a hand-held device. He contends that he was acting within the exemption provided under Subsection 14 (1) of O. Reg. 366/09, which reads as follows (emphasis added):
Hey guys i just wanted to know what speeds you see others do on the roads on a regular basis. As we all know no body drives 100 km. It seems they only hit that speed twice once on the way up and once on the way down.
it seems the De Facto limit on the 401 is about 120-130. But lately i dont know if…
On June 10, 2017, I was pulled over by an OPP on the 403 heading WB and told I registered 136km/hr. I kept chit chat to a minimum and took my ticket and went on with my day. I later requested my disclosure and did not receive it until a week before my Oct. 27 court date, and so I had my date…
Anyone know any more information? Apparently kathleen wynne mentioned trying to introduce legislation after more than 20 years of no speed cameras. My guess is that it wont happen, since they've tried before many times to bring it back after it was abolished.
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I posted this in the 3 Demerit Section and haven't received any
responses.
I received a failure to stop at an amber light ticket on April 17, 2009. At my First Attendance Meeting I asked to read the police officer's notes and remember thinking how ridiculous they were and the difficulty…
I was on the right side of the road going straight when a pedestrian waved down the taxi driver in the lane next to me. He pulled over to the right without any notice or signalling and hit me with the side of his car.
There were many witnesses but I immediately had a concussion and did not think of…
My mother was driving EB on a 4 lane street (2 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB).
She was in the left hand lane and started a left hand turn so as to enter a side street, crossing WB traffic. There was NO intersection. She hit a cyclist who was heading WB. Police where called but none showed up. My…
If the speed limit is 50, and you do 100+, not only do you get 6 points. Your car gets impounded for a week, and your license suspended for 7 days, along with a hefty fine of at least $2000. The penalty is actually the same as for racing. The law came in effect on October 1, 2007. Remember -…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural…