Forestry Road Radar Good News Say Truck Safe Director

Friday, January 09, 2009 11:10 AM

Prince George, B.C.- Forest Truck Safe Director, Mary Anne Arcand welcomes the news the Province will be training people to use radar guns on forestry roads and issue tickets. “This is something we have been pushing for since we started the Forestry Trucks Safe initiative three years ago. It’s largely been something called for by the truckers themselves, who, everyday, have a near miss or a fender bender with someone who comes speeding around a corner and there’s no where for the trucker to go.”

Arcand says the speed issues on forestry roads are largely not the logging trucks, so much as the other users most of whom are in pick ups. “You know industry crews, the welding guys, or the mechanics or the weekend fishermen and hunters who don’t think there are rules out there and once they get off the highway its pedal to the metal.”

The speed limit, unless posted otherwise, is 80 km. “That’s awfully fast already for a gravel road that may have pot holes and maintenance issues” says Arcand.

While some claim this is just another cash grab by the province, Arcand disagrees “It’s not a lot of cash, the fines are not anywhere near what they are on the highways and I’m not sure they are going to be a deterrent in the end, I mean its $85 bucks, but its more about people trying to understand they have to drive just as responsibly in the bush as they do on the pavement.”

According to stats, when there is a crash involving a commercial vehicle, it is the OTHER vehicle that is at fault 85% of the time. Arcand says Chief Lake Road will be very busy this winter, there will be 25 thousand loads coming out of the Nukko Lake, Reid Lake area this winter, heading to Carrier, Canfor and Lakeland “That’s a lot of logs, that’s one every six minutes Monday to Friday.”

Arcand says this is not a government initiative, that it is something that has been driven by the industry itself. Companies may have had radar guns to keep tabs on their own drivers, they didn’t have any teeth to handle others who take on a new attitude when they get off the pavement “It isn’t a free for all out there that you can throw your seatbelt off and say yee-haw here we go.”

*****

ForestTruck Safe Director Mary Anne Arcand submitted the following note after the window of opportunity to comment had closed. We post it here now for all to read:

to lost it all, re: your comments on the radar guns (Jan 9) and your subsequent comments about my involvement, and where did I get the stats of 85%.

85% of crashes between commercial vehicles and private vehicles are the private vehicles' fault, according to ICBC, RCMP and the Institute for Traffic Safety Research.

The problem with ICBC and their forest road claim allocation of 50/50 is that they do not go out and investigate, they know many of the roads have only one lane, and that they are mainly industrial use. Their formula for settling claims on industrial roads is different than their formula for public roads.

You are right, you did contact me, and I didn't get back to you. My apologies. I have 12 cases like yours that I'm currently arguing with ICBC on, all around the province. Their response is to get me to tell them what percentage of the road users in each case are industrial, and what percentage is non-industrial traffic. Then they would award blame/settle claims according to that percentage. I have not done that, because that would put most of the blame on the loggers, when in fact it's the other way around, particularly in your case.

There are a lot of things not right and not safe in terms of how resource roads are managed. The Resource Road Act that was proposed is now off the table again, and in the meantime, there is no recourse or alternative. All I can do is keep trying, and build evidence to prove your case. Again, sorry I didn't call you back - but I didn't have any news for you- not good news, anyway.

MaryAnne Arcand
Director, Forestry TruckSafe

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 11:10 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: lost it all on January 9 2009 9:59 PM

85% at fault, I don't think so Mary Anne, in my experience and by talking to other guys who have had similar experience of an accident on a forest road it is always 50/50 fault according to ICBC.

In 2006 I was driving a log truck and was involved in an accident I was 50% at fault as per ICBC. When I asked ICBC what I could have done differently to be 100% correct, ICBC refused to answer the question. The only answer they said was the road was too narrow for two way traffic.

I took this same scenerio to my MLA [John Rustad} with no result and to WorkSafeBC with the same result.

My question to both was, Why do I have a workplace in BC where if I do everything correctly and something goes bad to no fault of my own I am 50% at fault?

My solution to the problem was the province must widen every forest road in the province so as I can have a workplace that I can be assured if I do everything correctly I can be assured 100% correct. Or the other solution could be to fix ICBC.

Again no one responded to my questions or possible solutions.

P.S.
I also forwarded this scenerio to Mary Anne and staff at TruckSafe as well and was told all the warm fuzzy stuff like we will definatly look into that, but to date I have never heard another thing.

So again I say 85%, where do you get that stat Mary Anne?

Posted by: gus on January 9 2009 10:44 PM

Lost it all ... I agree with you totally.

To widen all forestry roads would be virtually prohibitive. However, just like a train on a single track, it is possible to run two way traffic safely on a single lane road, bridge, rail track. The will is simply not there.

I would think that the collector roads should be built to a two direction standard. I think in addition, they should be wider than the conventional paved road to give consideration to the slipage on the gravel surface, washboard, steeper grades in some areas, and lack of proper shoulders and ditches/cuts which will often end up in overturned vehicles if they go off the road.

The feeder roads from the landings can be single direction at a time controlled single lanes.

In Northern Ontario they controlled a section of road with GPS monitoring. The speed of each vehicle was logged. Radar guns are samplings only and they are expensive since they have to be manned. GPS monitoring provides a clear record and clear proof required for disciplinary action on the part of the contracting company and fines and other consequences on the part of the RCMP or ICBC if need be.

These roads are primarily workplaces. In fact, another consideration is to make them 100% workplaces. We do not allow gawkers to visit construction sites unless they are guided and have the proper PPE on. Perhaps it is time to take this workplace a bit more serious. If the roads shut down for Sundays, or they are seasonally shut down, then allow them to be used for recreation purposes.

Nobody is seriously attacking this issue, including the province, ICBC, the contractors and BCFSC. None of them want to step on the toes of the industry.

Playing Russian Roulette with one of six chambers loaded with a live bullet is taking a chance with your life. The odds are against you. Eventually you will loose.

Driving a forestry road which is not properly designed and operated is like playing Russian Roulette. You may think that all chambers are empty, but in too many cases the drivers are sadly mistaken.

The time for sweet talking is over. Time for some action. There has not been any serious action so far.

Posted by: Eagleone on January 10 2009 2:44 AM

I like a work truck that has a tracking system in it. Its a persons best line of defense in the case of an accident. On my personal vehicle no way. Although I do think they can be good for a company truck. Then every one is playing by the same rules economically, and everyone knows how the job was performed... especially in the situation of an accident.

The problem is... on forestry roads, at this time of year, a driver does not want to get out and chain up unnecessarily at -30 weather... so if that means running a valley to get some added momentum for your next climb... then a driver should have that 'discretion' at his disposal as every much if not more of a safety issue (whats 90 verse 80 then? considering). Ditto for running down a big hill keeping the truck ahead of the trailer for moments where speed limits should be the secondary concern. After all it is a dangerous job and often more speed means more control because more tire area coverage means more traction and the difference between 70 and 90 is the difference between sliding everywhere(at 70 with lockers in), and having control(at 90 with lockers out).

Any system has to allow for these kinds of things. A person making up rules sitting behind a desk can't always anticipate every risk circumstance or scenario on the road and wrap it up into a simple set of rules. Variances should be worked into any hypothetical systems to allow for unforeseen circumstance that is inevitable driving forestry roads or even highways for that matter. Often is the case where the bureaucracy making up the rules have no idea of all the implication. So potential new rules I think should be seen more as guidelines to a small degree of variation.

Time will tell how they implement this new system and whether its an economic drain that creates unnecessary enforcement situations... or if it actually contributes to safety in a positive proactive for everyone kind of way?

Posted by: dogs on January 10 2009 10:44 AM

Not sure who is advising Mr. Bell but someone sure didn't check their facts when he made this annoucement on the Coast- he picked Comox- there is one FS road in the Comox valley and you have to drive private lands (which the FS still doesn't have a SRW on) to get to this 2km stretch of FS road. While this may be good for the interior it is a not issue on the south coast because most roads are private roads which are gated and locked to the public.

Posted by: gitterdun on January 11 2009 11:26 PM

I only hope that the guys manning these radar guns have some common sense. We've seen it before where people out hunting or Christmas tree cutting don't pull over or park where they are not in the way. The pull outs have to be used by industry traffic to properly clear other traffic and you can't just jump out in front of a truck, especially if he's already speeding, and hope that he can stop in time. I've seen cops, who should know better, pull people over in the most dangerous areas. It's just luck that there aren't more accidents out there.