 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to Dustyn
Re: Hydro poll installed in middle of highway It wasn't installed. It wasn't removed during the construction of the road.
Basically the contractor was in a bind.
1) Submit cost over-runs for a month or more waiting (which cost over-runs are now part of a huge mafia conspiracy and inquiry in Quebec).
Or
2) Say frig it. Do the job. Submit no cost over-runs because Hydro Quebec didn't remove their pole. Finish the job per contract and not have fingers pointed at them that they are playing the system and skimming money off the top to give to the mafia.
#2 was clearly the best choice, in my opinion. I say good for them. |
|
 DustynPremium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:10 | |
|
 milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:1 | Trucks had to take the wider side in both directions. Imagine seeing the headlights of a truck on your side of the highway! Yikes!
Unfortunately, it's a symbol of the current state of affairs in Quebec.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live |
|
|
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3
 ·Start Communicat..
| reply to hm
said by hm :#2 was clearly the best choice, in my opinion. I say good for them. Bzzzt. Absolutely false. The correct answer is to wait for Hydro Quebec to remove the pole, and then bill for cost due to delay. That is, at least, what would happen anywhere else in the country. Not only is Quebec the only place where such a dangerous and bullshit result that has the potential to put lives in danger ever occur, but it's probably the only place where someone would ever think that this is the "best choice" !
That photo pretty much sums up the sorry state of affairs in Quebec better than anyone could ever put into words, and your "good for them" response is precisely why it is in such a state. |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to Dustyn
said by Dustyn:Actualy it was fully installed... and motorists managed to avoid it. I thought the picture showed a clear representation of that but... oh well.  They could have at least put the right sign on it  |
|
DustynPremium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:10 | said by Gone:said by Dustyn:Actualy it was fully installed... and motorists managed to avoid it. I thought the picture showed a clear representation of that but... oh well. They could have at least put the right sign on it Or this?
»www.worldofstock.com/slides/MES2122.jpg
--
Remember that cool hidden "Graffiti Wall" here on BBR? After the name change I became the "owner", so to speak as it became: Dustyn's Wall »[Serious] RIP
|
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| Naw, that's better suited to overpasses in the Montreal area. |
|
DustynPremium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:10 | True.  |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | reply to milnoc
More accurate headline: "Highway installed around hydro pole"  |
|
 LazManPremium
join:2003-03-26
canada | reply to Gone
said by Gone:said by hm :#2 was clearly the best choice, in my opinion. I say good for them. Bzzzt. Absolutely false. The correct answer is to wait for Hydro Quebec to remove the pole, and then bill for cost due to delay. That is, at least, what would happen anywhere else in the country. Not only is Quebec the only place where such a dangerous and bullshit result that has the potential to put lives in danger ever occur, but it's probably the only place where someone would ever think that this is the "best choice" ! The exact same thing happened in Barrie last year, during the relocation/reconstruction of a road...
Basically, the road sub was going to be penalized by the general contractor, for not hitting certain milestones (i.e. curbing, paving, etc) despite the fact that the utility hadn't relocated the poles yet... So the road crew did what they had to do, to NOT be penalized - it looked pretty much identical to the Quebec pic's, other then the lanes on either side of the pole were in the same direction (one straight, one right turn, IRC) - not opposing...
Happens all the time - artifical milestones are written into the contract, either attached to payment or penalty clauses. You can't expect one sub to take a hit because the GC or project manager can't get another sub to do their part in time, can you?
I agree it makes no sense, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen - and having been in similar positions (having to complete my portion of a larger project, before dependancies are completed, or facing fines/penalties) in the past - I totally understand why it was done. I'm not prepared to take money out of my own pocket, because someone else can't get their sh_t together... |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
 ·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| said by LazMan:I agree it makes no sense, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen - and having been in similar positions (having to complete my portion of a larger project, before dependancies are completed, or facing fines/penalties) in the past - I totally understand why it was done. I'm not prepared to take money out of my own pocket, because someone else can't get their sh_t together...
OK, but if there was an accident, all parties would be hauled into court for civil damages, and there could also be charges of criminal negligence involved.
If a death occurred, maybe even manslaughter or whatever it is called in Canada.
Can you imagine defending this in a civil or criminal trial?
So even from a purely monetary POV, the solution of "just do it and leave the pole there" is not good.
And---
If I were the [insurance company] for these contractors, I would hit the roof. I would drop their insurance coverage ASAP.
Insurance companies can't make a profit insuring the Three Stooges. |
|
 DKSDamn Kidney StonesPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
·Bell Sympatico
| said by PX Eliezer:Insurance companies can't make a profit insuring the Three Stooges.
This is Quebec. The whole province drives like the Three Stooges. Quebec is also a No Fault system, insured by the government.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:1 | reply to PX Eliezer
said by PX Eliezer:OK, but if there was an accident, all parties would be hauled into court for civil damages, and there could also be charges of criminal negligence involved.
Nope! Quebec's no fault insurance works both ways. Not only can you not sue other drivers for negligence, you can't sue the government either.
And in a province where shoddy mafia managed workmanship is the norm, the government isn't about to change that policy any time soon.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | said by milnoc:you can't sue the government either.
Nah. You can. You can sue the municipality/city. Not sure about transport Quebec, but you likely could.
Think pot hole.
it's been a decade or maybe 2 decades since new laws came out preventing you from being able to sue the cities for pot hole damage. But that was taken to court back then. If a pot hole has been reg'd with the city for repair and you damage your car in it, then you win. Also, regardless if it's been reg'd or not, if the size meets a certain criteria (I forget the specifics dimensions) then again, you win. Basically there is no law that protects the municipality from negligence. This is negligence.
I'm just not sure who would be on the hook. Transport Quebec or the municipality. Or both.
If I had a crap car I would hit it on purpose and make a claim. Or I would borrow one of Peterboro's car's that sit on his front lawn  |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:Happens all the time - artifical milestones are written into the contract, either attached to payment or penalty clauses. You can't expect one sub to take a hit because the GC or project manager can't get another sub to do their part in time, can you? No, it doesn't happen all the time. The civil engineers who I know - and there's a few from different jurisdictions and at different levels - are utterly shocked that this would be allowed to happen. A properly-worded performance clause in a contract wouldn't penalize a contractor for delays for something like this. The problem is both negligence on the part of the contractor, and their own bad lawyers who would allow a clause that didn't protect them from the bureaucracy of a utility company. The MTO and Niagara Region will not start construction until utility relocation has been completed. I assumed the same sanity existed elsewhere.
Either way, improperly constructing a road with a utility pole in the middle of it is going to get you into more hot water as far as performance clauses go than a delay. The difference is that while you can attempt to sue for damages due to a delay from a utility company, you can't do anything over your own negligence when you pave a pole into a road, and the utility could just as easily end up billing you for the extra work involved to remove it, too. |
|
| reply to milnoc
said by milnoc:said by PX Eliezer:OK, but if there was an accident, all parties would be hauled into court for civil damages, and there could also be charges of criminal negligence involved.
Nope! Quebec's no fault insurance works both ways. Not only can you not sue other drivers for negligence, you can't sue the government either. And in a province where shoddy mafia managed workmanship is the norm, the government isn't about to change that policy any time soon. and if somthing falls on your head, pray you arent in a car, a man was sitting in a parked car in westmount when a tree fell on him, he was killed but no one could be sued as it involved a vehicle had he been walking his family could sue... |
|
 AnavSarcastic Llama? Naw, Just AcerbicPremium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:3 | reply to PX Eliezer
said by PX Eliezer:said by LazMan:I agree it makes no sense, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen - and having been in similar positions (having to complete my portion of a larger project, before dependancies are completed, or facing fines/penalties) in the past - I totally understand why it was done. I'm not prepared to take money out of my own pocket, because someone else can't get their sh_t together...
OK, but if there was an accident, all parties would be hauled into court for civil damages, and there could also be charges of criminal negligence involved. If a death occurred, maybe even manslaughter or whatever it is called in Canada. Can you imagine defending this in a civil or criminal trial? So even from a purely monetary POV, the solution of "just do it and leave the pole there" is not good. And--- If I were the [insurance company] for these contractors, I would hit the roof. I would drop their insurance coverage ASAP. Insurance companies can't make a profit insuring the Three Stooges. I'm shocked, an american brings up litigation.
--
Ain't nuthin but the blues! "Albert Collins".
Leave your troubles at the door! "Pepe Peregil" De Sevilla. Just Don't Wifi without WPA, "Yul Brenner"
LlamaWorks Equipment |
|
| reply to Gone
said by Gone:said by LazMan:Happens all the time - artifical milestones are written into the contract, either attached to payment or penalty clauses. You can't expect one sub to take a hit because the GC or project manager can't get another sub to do their part in time, can you? No, it doesn't happen all the time. The civil engineers who I know - and there's a few from different jurisdictions and at different levels - are utterly shocked that this would be allowed to happen. A properly-worded performance clause in a contract wouldn't penalize a contractor for delays for something like this. The problem is both negligence on the part of the contractor, and their own bad lawyers who would allow a clause that didn't protect them from the bureaucracy of a utility company. The MTO and Niagara Region will not start construction until utility relocation has been completed. I assumed the same sanity existed elsewhere. Either way, improperly constructing a road with a utility pole in the middle of it is going to get you into more hot water as far as performance clauses go than a delay. The difference is that while you can attempt to sue for damages due to a delay from a utility company, you can't do anything over your own negligence when you pave a pole into a road, and the utility could just as easily end up billing you for the extra work involved to remove it, too. i agree this is ridicoulous but i can also see the contractors side of things, the asphalt plants shut down at the end of october, october always has a huge rush on asphalt so you want to get in and out. Waiting on hydro quebec is like waiting in the ER, you never know when they will fix things. In my town they were replacing the water lines on the main street and widening it, once the road was widened 5 poles were now in the right of way, took hydro nearly 2 years to remove them. (sad thing is often this work isnt even done by hydro but by the sub Thirro) |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| It's one thing to widen a road and have the poles in the right-of-way but not in travel lanes that are open. That's not entirely unusual, same thing happened with the Glendale Ave widening in St. Cats and the Regional Road 20 widening going into Fonthill, they ended up being part what were to be cycle lanes and were eventually removed later. It's an entirely other issue when a pole is left in the middle of an open travel lane. That's nothing short of insanity, and as I said a reconstruction or full realignment sees utilities moved first before any of the road gets constructed. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| reply to Anav
said by Anav: I'm shocked, an american brings up litigation.
You guys are catching up.
For example:
June 2012 W. Brad Hanna, FCIArb., Laura Stefan
The Quebec Superior Court has just dramatically expanded the scope of liability for franchisors in Canada. In Bertico Inc. et al. v. Dunkin' Brands Canada Ltd. ("Dunkin'") the Court held that a franchisor is required to promote its brand, fight off competitors and protect its market share for the benefit of the franchisees.
The Dunkin' decision has the potential to become a landmark decision that imposes additional obligations on franchisors and that develops new law in the area of franchisor-franchisee relations....
....The Court expressed its ultimate conclusion in strong language:
But the greatest failing of all was [franchisor's] failure to protect its brand in the Quebec market. No doubt the host of failings chronicled by the Franchisees contributed to the collapse of the Dunkin Donuts' brand in Quebec. A successful brand is crucial to the maintenance of healthy franchises. However, when the brand falls out of bed, collapses, so too do those who rely upon it. And this is precisely what has happened in this case.
|
|
