Road markings and municipal libaility
 

This one's probably for Zulutango.

If in the construction or placement of road markings or signage the city deviates from the ministry's manual of standard traffic signs and pavement markings, what liability, if any, does the city expose itself should those markings or signage be partly to blame for a collision?

Alex, I'll take "Don't Feed The Trolls" for $800.

Not sure. It would depend 100% on the specifics of this case as to what happened... This is the definition of a traffic control device
"traffic control device" means a sign, signal, line, meter, marking, space, barrier or device, not inconsistent with this Part, placed or erected by authority of the minister responsible for the administration of the Transportation Act , the council of a municipality or the governing body of a treaty first nation or a person authorized by any of them to exercise that authority;


NOT inconsist with this part is a phrase that attracted my eye. Lawyers will get into this. There will need to be proof that their actions contributed to, or were responsible for the resulting crash. I know that in a case where Police were involved in a crash where they were found to be 1% rsponsible...and that was not a typo...they ended up paying all the bills because they were government...other driver paid zero$$. That may apply in this case...with civil trials ( and I testify in them) it is only on the balance of probabilities...i.e. 51% that responsibility/guilt.Criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt...95% plus.

Do you have a specific job site to reference?

When we put out signs they each have to be a certain amount of meters apart and be in the correct order. We make up traffic plans prior to starting work to cover our asses and to prove that the signs were there so there's no confusion on our end. If there's an accident and the person comes to the crews and complains the safety officer will come by, take photos and go from there. You'd make your claim and send it to Risk Management and from there they'll go over every single detail, was the accident preventable on your end etc etc and let me say, they're a pretty damn good team!!! For road markings the only thing popping into my mind is orange/white/green/yellow spray paint on the ground and if so those are just outlines of buried fibre optic/gas/hydro lines etc.

I've seen accidents on job sites before, usually they're just little fender benders from people not paying attention. The occasional time a car will go through the barricades because they don't want to wait and think it's safe enough that they can get through since it's on a small street. When that happens you've got an entire crew as witnesses to go against you. In the past 10+ years I've never had an accident on site related to wrong signage. We do our due diligence since being suspended without pay isn't exactly fun.

Not a job site, but these silly things

http://www.thezone.fm/wp-content/uploads/Puzzle.jpg

Oh okay, I misunderstood then. I thought you were talking about the signs and road marking that would be used on construction sites on the road.

No, but some of those are placed poorly too. Speed limit signs on the ground for example, and no "end of work zone" sign signalling where it's legal to resume speed. But I digress.

They have turned 2 legal crosswalks into "artwork" consisting of blue and white crabs and fish-things?? here where I live. IMHO they now are not legal as they are NOT "
NOT inconsist with this part"...in otherwords a double negative...they are inconsistant with the prescribed design of a crosswalk. I believe that it could be argued that you no longer have to yield to pedestrians as a painted crosswalk....BUT you might have to yield to them as "invisible crosswalks"..ie...if there were no design of any sort but sidewalks on either side aligned, that is supposed to be an invisible crosswalk.

"crosswalk" means

(a) a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or
(b) the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway;

Lets just say you can't run over a pedestrian in that area and get away with it because of the design of the crosswalk...

Actually, I think they could possibly be okay.

The rainbow crosswalks CoV put on Davie and Bute are bounded by white lines.

In the Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual for British Columbia (yes, 1994 edition is current version), states "Twin parallel line type crosswalks are only suitable at intersections that are controlled by pedestrian or vehicular signals" (s 2.6) and that "Municipalities may choose, however, to retain the twin parallel line markings for unsignalized crossings on roads under their jurisdiction" (s 2.4).

So the white lines bounding the rainbow crosswalk make it an approved crossing facility as shown in manual figure 1.1.

Does your "blue and white crab 'novelty crossing'" have the white bounding lines?
If so, it probably complies with the Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual and therefore is an approved "traffic control device."