# I damaged DND vehicle, need advice



## sumyungi (24 Aug 2012)

Good day everyone I need wisdom, the cost of repairs was 15000$ on this truck. They're telling me I'm responsible for it, I'm confused though it's an accident. If I crashed my own vehicle its covered by collision insurance. I know people who have driven LAV3s off bridges, wrote off 100,000 RHIBS and crashed HMCSs into other ships and didn't pay anything. Should I be held liable for this ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Aug 2012)

Being responsible for the accident and having to pay the damages are two different things.


----------



## sumyungi (24 Aug 2012)

They're saying I have to pay the 15,000$


----------



## aesop081 (24 Aug 2012)

sumyungi said:
			
		

> If I crashed my own vehicle its covered by collision insurance.



It is covered by insurance because you pay for insurance. 




> I know people who have driven LAV3s off bridges, wrote off 100,000 RHIBS and crashed HMCSs into other ships and didn't pay anything.



Without knowing how these things happen, you cannot compare them to your situation.




> Should be held liable for this ?



If the investigation concludes that you were negligent, then yes.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If the investigation concludes that you were negligent, then yes.



As CDN Aviator said; if you are found negligent, then you will have to pay.  It has happened in the past, where drivers through their negligence have cause damage to vehicles and have had to pay for repairs/replacement.  The precedence is there.


----------



## MedCorps (24 Aug 2012)

I have seen a few members billed for vehicle damage caused by negligence before. One of the more memorable cases was where a MCpl was the "Fuel Point NCO" and he allowed gasoline to be put into a diesel SMP vehicle at the end of a road move. 

He split the cost of damages (which was not as high as I would have guessed, but still some pretty serious cash) with the Pte (T) driver who was doing the fueling. Both claimed during the investigation that they were not paying attention during the fueling process. 

Who would have guessed that you cannot put gas in a diesel truck?  

Negligence is negligence. The Crown should not have to pay for your f'up if indeed it is negligence. 

MC


----------



## sumyungi (24 Aug 2012)

I mean an employer with any sense would insure their 50,000$ vehicles against accidents. Shouldn't expect anything from their broke employees who can't afford to pay. Whether you're at fault or not its still an accident. I'm a reservist and not working is there ANYway to reduce the cost ?


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2012)

sumyungi said:
			
		

> I mean an employer with any sense would insure their 50,000$ vehicles against accidents. Shouldn't expect anything from their broke employees who can't afford to pay. Whether you're at fault or not its still an accident. I'm a reservist and not working is there ANYway to reduce the cost ?



You need to do some (a lot of) reading and research.  Then you will understand.


----------



## Maxadia (24 Aug 2012)

sumyungi said:
			
		

> I mean an employer with any sense would insure their 50,000$ vehicles against accidents. Shouldn't expect anything from their broke employees who can't afford to pay. Whether you're at fault or not its still an accident. I'm a reservist and not working is there ANYway to reduce the cost ?



Welcome to the entitled generation.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Aug 2012)

sumyungi said:
			
		

> I mean an employer with any sense would insure their 50,000$ vehicles against accidents.



This is irrelevant. DND vehicles are not insured. You can whine about insurance until you are blue in the face if you want.



> Whether you're at fault or not its still an accident.



If you are "at fault", it is no longer an accident.


----------



## MedCorps (24 Aug 2012)

I also think it is important to distinguish between an "at fault accident", an "accident not at fault" and "an accident caused by negligence".  

MC


----------



## sumyungi (24 Aug 2012)

I'm just saying if I owned this 2012 truck I wouldn't casually drive around with no insurance thinking 'Oh if I crash I'll just pay for everything from my own pocket no big deal'
Its just my opinion but an employer should be responsible for its own assets and employees. If I injure myself at work even if its negligent every things paid for period. 
Like I said before, I know a handful of people who have wrote off military vehicles that are exponentially more expensive through misuse and unsafe practice and didn't pay anything.
I'm not looking for responses defending the crown, rather advice to avoid charges I can't afford and places to research this topic


----------



## aesop081 (24 Aug 2012)

sumyungi said:
			
		

> I'm just saying



Yes, we got it. You crashed a truck and do not think you should pay for it because DND should carry insurance. DND does not. If you have 404s, you should have known that already.

Ask your transport section to show you why you are being made to pay. Start with the investigation report.


----------



## MedCorps (24 Aug 2012)

You could always ask to be charged under NDA 124. If found not guilty then make the rightful argument that you were indeed not negligent while performing your military duty as a driver.  If you are found not guilty, therefore not negligent and therefore no need to pay the 15K in damages.  

What was the circumstance of the accident?  We might in our heads be thinking the worst. 

MC


----------



## mariomike (24 Aug 2012)

sumyungi said:
			
		

> <snip> places to research this topic



This may be of interest.

4) Where wilfulness is not involved and liability arises under subparagraph (1)(a) or (b) or paragraph (2) of article 38.01 only by reason of negligence on the part of an officer or non-commissioned member:

(b) where the negligence is not of a minor character, an administrative deduction ordered under paragraph (2) shall not exceed

v. where the amount involved is more than $ 500, one-fifth of the amount or $ 125 whichever is the greater, subject to the limitation that where liability arises out of his negligence in operating a motor vehicle the deduction shall not exceed $ 250.:
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-01/doc/chapter-chapitre-038.pdf


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2012)

I'm not saying it's the case but if you DID drive like a fool and cause $15'000 worth of
damage why SHOULDN'T  you pay for it?
Why should tax payers?

"other people didn't so I shouldn't" isn't a really strong argument.


----------



## chrisf (24 Aug 2012)

Opposing point of view here... it wouldn't be the first time somone got over zealous, and arbitrarily claimed "You're paying for this!" in either some misguided attempt "scare" the member staight, or for reasons of their own personal inadequacy.

I did some minor cosmetic damage to a DND vehicle some years ago as a private (For what it's worth, it was determined that I was not in any way negligent, and the cause was both a fault in the vehicle, and a very poorly placed steel hand rail on a stair case.... which had alredy been struck by multiple other vehicles.).

Shortly after (the next day or so) I was summoned to our local base transport section, where I was given a good two hour blast from several MSE ops of ranks between MCPL and WO about how I was a terrible driver, how I was going to be charged, and how I was going to be held fully responsible for the full amount of repairs (which was the cost of a new bumper, I believe it was abuot $1700, no small sum to a class A reservist).

Ultimately, I was not held responsible for any of it, and I got my 404s back within a week, no charges, not even any remedial training.

At the time, I was appropriately frightened that I would be paying $1700. 

In retrospect, , the MSE section, while they did conduct the investigation on the damage, despite their ranting, had no authority to charge me, or collect any money, they can make all the recommendations they like in their report, but the authority to charge and fine lies with the CO.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Aug 2012)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Opposing point of view here...



One that is perfectly valid. I just stopped caring about the OP's problem because of his "DND should have insurance" defence.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2012)

Maybe if DND started making more members pay for the stupid accidents they caused soldiers would be less inclined to piss around with vehicles.


----------



## chrisf (24 Aug 2012)

You do realise there's other disciplinary measures available? If the member was being negligent, toss the book at them, there's been far too many accidents and even deaths caused by extremely stupid things done with DND vehicles.

If you suddenly fine a member the amount of, or close to, their annual income, that member suddenly becomes *very* useless. Even if it's self-imposed, or if they "deserved" it, they're still in severe financial hardship. They've suddenly become a *huge * security risk.

The only effective way to correct that security risk is to either release them immediately after being fined, or lock them up until they've got a positive cash flow again... you want that for every dented bumper?

In the mean time, the OP needs to:

1. Talk to his chain of command about what's happening administratively
2. Read (reference posted by MarioMike for ease of spoon-feeding)
3. Wait for the investigation to complete

Bonus:

If you want wisdom, here's some. "Consider the source". Who's saying you have to pay?


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2012)

sumyungi said:
			
		

> I'm just saying if I owned this 2012 truck I wouldn't casually drive around with no insurance thinking 'Oh if I crash I'll just pay for everything from my own pocket no big deal'
> Its just my opinion but an employer should be responsible for its own assets and employees. If I injure myself at work even if its negligent every things paid for period.
> Like I said before, I know a handful of people who have wrote off military vehicles that are exponentially more expensive through misuse and unsafe practice and didn't pay anything.
> I'm not looking for responses defending the crown, rather advice to avoid charges I can't afford and places to research this topic



As I said:



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> You need to do some (a lot of) reading and research.  Then you will understand.



You obviously have no idea of what your are talking about when it comes to insuring government and CF vehicles. 


Listen to what is being said here and then have the patience to wait to find out what the outcome of the Accident Investigation actually is.  Don't get yourself all tied up with what someone may have said about you paying.  You may be found negligent and have to pay; you may not.  You may lose your 404's; you may not.  You may have to take remedial driver training; you may not.  At the sounds of it, no investigation has yet reached a definitive conclusion, so be patient and wait for the verdict to be arrived at.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2012)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> You do realise there's other disciplinary measures available? If the member was being negligent, toss the book at them, there's been far too many accidents and even deaths caused by extremely stupid things done with DND vehicles.
> 
> If you suddenly fine a member the amount of, or close to, their annual income, that member suddenly becomes *very* useless. Even if it's self-imposed, or if they "deserved" it, they're still in severe financial hardship. They've suddenly become a *huge * security risk.
> 
> ...



Sig Op,  

I realize getting an 18 year old kid who's reserves pay is his only source of income to pay for a written off vehicle is a brutal thing to do.  Someone's not going to be able to drop $15'000 (for example) just like that.

On the same note I think there needs to be more punishment then a couple hundred dollar fine.  I've seen a lot of young soldiers act like total assholes with vehicles, trash them and much like the OP comes across ( to me at least) shrug their shoulders and say big deal DND should have insurance for that. Lots of soldiers treat vehicles like shit and it's a huge joke to them. There needs to be more accountability than $125 out of someones pocket (if it's found that they are negligent or whatever).

I agree about reserves leadership making all kinds of grandiose threats while having absolutely no schmick what they are talking about. We had a transport officer who routinely threatened privates with up to quarter million dollar fines for all those weirdo transport rules.

And yet, having a troop thinking he might have to pay a really large fine for acting like an idiot isn't always a bad thing.  I don't have a lot of sympathy for soldiers who put themselves in financial hardships due to belligerent and downright dangerous behavior.


----------



## chrisf (24 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> On the same note I think there needs to be more punishment then a couple hundred dollar fine.  I've seen a lot of young soldiers act like total assholes with vehicles, trash them and much like the OP comes across ( to me at least) shrug their shoulders and say big deal DND should have insurance for that. Lots of soldiers treat vehicles like crap and it's a huge joke to them. There needs to be more accountability than $125 out of someones pocket (if it's found that they are negligent or whatever).



I completely agree, I've personally witnessed plenty of examples(though I won't list any of them in a public forum).

Honestly, I don't actually give a crap about the original posters problem, and [in my experience] most serious damage to DND civillian pattern vehicles is caused by driver negligence.

I just can't stand hearing people make insane threats they have no authority to follow up on.


----------



## MedCorps (24 Aug 2012)

Mariomike was right on the button.  Read QR&O chapter 38.  Chances are you will only be on the hook for $250 big ones reguardless of what Base MSE or Unit Tn tells you. 

Unless... this goes to the JAG via the CDS then you very well might be paying 15K.  In the recoveries I have seen the large one (fuel incident above) went to the JAG.  

The smaller ones ($100 to $250, although the damage was indeed more in all cases) were handled at the unit (or seemed to be) and were uncontested by the offending member. In one of those cases I know the "uncontested status" was at the advice of the CSM and I suspect in lieu of a charge (although that would never officially happen right?).

If you read the QR&O contesting the administrative deduction can quickly push this matter to the CDS as the amounts of contention are set so low that it needs to be refereed to him if you object to the deduction.  Contesting the deduction might also encourage the RSM to recommend a NDA 124. 

So if I were you I would: 

1) Read QR&O 38 and get a good understanding of it. 
2) Seek out your Pl Comd via the CoC and discuss the matter with him, highlighted QR&O 38 in hand.
3) Set aside $250 bones from your next pay - the max deduction for a vehicle incident see: 38.03 (4)(b)(v) 
4) Pony up the cash via administrative deduction for the damages you have negligently done. 
5) Thank Mariomike 
6) Send a $100 donation to army.ca for doing your staff work for you and allowing you to sleep this weekend. 

MC


----------



## Haggis (24 Aug 2012)

Sumyungai:

The CF and the government self-insures it's vehicles (not it's drivers) through the Crown Liability Act.  When you buy car insurance, you are insuring the vehicle, not you.  Your rate to insure the vehicle is determined by a number of factors, one beingh your driving record.  That tells the insurer what kind of risk the covered vehicle may be subjected to because of your driving record.

If some drunk hits a CF vehicle, the Crown will recover the damages from him.  In such a case it would be doubtful that his insurance company would support him because he was committing a criminal offence at the time of the collision (note that I did not use the word "accident").

So,* if *  you are found at fault, the Crown can recover the damages from you. And since *you* are not insured, you will pay.

That's how it works.

Now, go do your homework and talk to your chain of command.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (24 Aug 2012)

So under the QR&O you pay $250 which is less than a lot of deductibles carried privately, and your insurance probably wont go up for having a claim unless you get a traffic ticket along with the collision.

Got off pretty lightly I think.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Sig Op,
> 
> I realize getting an 18 year old kid who's reserves pay is his only source of income to pay for a written off vehicle is a brutal thing to do.  Someone's not going to be able to drop $15'000 (for example) just like that.
> 
> ...



I think everyone should just wait, like George Wallace says, until the investigation is complete.

Quit the pre-judging and getting ready to toss someone to the wolves if you don't know WTF you're talking about.

The OP has good solid advice to follow, notwithstanding the rest of the tangents some wish to pursue.

Leave it be. 

All that's left is for the OP to act on it and let us know how he made out.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Aug 2012)

We're expanding on the topic no one is throwing him to the wolves. He still has a "DND should have insurence who cares" attitude.

Edit to add, I can see how my quoted post makes it look like I'm referring to the OP, I'm not. I mean in general I've found in my considerable experience dealing with this that a days pay isn't much of a deterant.


----------



## captloadie (25 Aug 2012)

And by the way, TN is not telling anyone they have to pay for damages, or at least shouldn't be.  What they do is send the bill to the unit who requested the detail, and provided the Fin code. If a CO then decides to go farther, than good on him. And normally it is only when the vehicle is a rental, and we owe the rental company cash do bases make big issues out of it


----------



## Red Devil (25 Aug 2012)

Just a thought.....but if drivers are charged the whole cost of repairs for genuine accidents (and I think the idiots should pay for wanton destruction due to pure negligence, by the way) who would ever volunteer to drive a vehicle. If the CF doesn't take a considered view and 'effectively' cover drivers for accidents, marching might become our only form of transportation. Hopefully common sense will prevail in this and other cases...I suspect it will.

So, whilst the DND does not have insurance, shouldn't the DND act as if it did (by covering accidental costs) unless a case of obvious negligence is proven. Personally, if an employer, other than DND, asked me to drive a vehicle and accept the risk without insurance coverage I would respectfully decline to drive.

 :2c:


----------



## Lerch (25 Aug 2012)

Somewhat related to the subject;

A couple years back I was tasked by a WO in my battery to go and pick up a member from Winnipeg airport. This was in January, and my usual route is straight down Highway #1. As I set off, the highway was clear with the exception of a few small snow drifts, and I only passed a few vehicles including snow plows.

When I got to Portage, the highway east had been closed and traffic was backed up. I called my friend back home to check road conditions for an alternate route (weathernetwork.ca has road condition map showing open and closed routes). He found me an open path to Highway #2, which was still open.

Anyway, long story short, while I was using the alternate route into Winnipeg, and while going safely under the speed limit, I hit a deep snow drift. Up until this one they were at most a foot deep, nothing more than a bump. I suspect the drift was two or more feet, but from a distance it's hard to judge until you're in it. When I got to Winnipeg and got a chance to step out, I saw the bottom skirt of the bumper had been knocked off and the passenger side was cracked.

When I got back to Shilo and parked the van, I filled out the accident report and passed it onto Regt Transport when I saw them, explained what happened and they had no problem. The next day, word had trickled back to the WO who had tasked me, that I broke a van. After giving him the same explanation he saw fit to try to bring his wrath down upon me because I hadn't used the authorized route and deviating was apparently a big no-no. Obviously I mentioned that nobody, the WO included, had told me that there was an authorized route. After some more words I never heard anything of it the WO.

Now, has anyone who's done a general driver task, been given an authorized route to carry out the task?


----------



## dangerboy (25 Aug 2012)

I have driven that route several times and in similarly conditions, the only times I can recall being told authorized routes is when I was part of a convoy and it was in the road move orders. Other than that I was just given contact numbers and told "don't speed".

That being said I am not an MSE Op nor have I ever been part of Battalion Transport so I don't know all the rules and regulations.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Aug 2012)

Red Devil said:
			
		

> Just a thought.....but if drivers are charged the whole cost of repairs for genuine accidents (and I think the idiots should pay for wanton destruction due to pure negligence, by the way) who would ever volunteer to drive a vehicle.



Well to circumvent that someone could just be TOLD to drive a vehicle if they are qualified for it, it's the military after all ;D

Good point about genuine accidents though.  Negligence could probably cover a lot of situations. If an young and inexperienced driver drives the panel van into a gate because they thought they had enough room and didn't get out of the vehicle to check that could be considered "negligent" perhaps?
Take that and compare it to the same van coming back with a dented bumper and mud, weeds and grass stuck all over the undercarriage from off roading and the driverand passengers saying they didn't know how it got there, with a big grin.



Lerch, same thing happened to me kind of. Had a Captain tell me I wasn't allowed taking a certain road in a city with the MSVS because it wasn't a MSR and if the MPs found out (despite being 100kms away) I would be charged and have my 404s taken away.  Of course the next day he takes the same road, I asked him about it not being an MSR and he said it's okay because he just needed to stop by the bank  :


----------



## Franko (25 Aug 2012)

Well, the last position I was in I was made privy to the outcome of the investigations held WRT accidents and the outcomes, including crew commanders.

Most at fault drivers were ordered to take DDC/SBC again and did not incur any financial garnishment off their pay.

That being said, we had one who had two accidents in three years of significance and his 404s have been pulled for the foreseeable future, which is resulting in an AR.

We had one that completely wrote off a piece of equipment due to a rollover while speeding in a clearly marked speed zone while on a bridge. He even lied about it. Again, 404s pulled, DDC/SBC and an AR completed. I'm unaware of the outcome of it.

Regards


----------



## my72jeep (25 Aug 2012)

Some years back I was found Negligent for damage to a DND rental, and was ordered to pay the $153.50 cost of the top of the dash Passenger side.
It was decided as the driver of the truck for a 2 month detail I should have noticed that the bottle of military issue bug dope had stopped slidding around on turn's, and affixed its self to the dash.


----------



## armyvern (25 Aug 2012)

I have seen one of my troops held accountable and successfully sued.

Circumstances:  On TD with a CFR plated vehicle; got into accident at intersection.

CFR vehicle written off as well as a civilian vehicle (+injury to a civilian).

Many witness statements etc as to the military member failing to stop at the stop sign. He was found at fault. He was required to reimburse the Crown for CFRd vehicle. The insurance company of the Civilian Vehicle involved went after the military driver's civilian insurance company for costs; his personal insurance refused to cover as accident occurred in a work vehicle while on duty.  All we could do was send member to see the AJAG for some advice, "get a lawyer". He did, he lost and he paid for the civilian vehicle damages/injury too.

Whether or not one is held "at fault" and is required to pay is totally dependent upon the unique and individual circumstances in each individual situation. There is no "blanket" answer.

Edit to add:  Being found "at fault" does not, necessarily, equate into also being "negligent".  We've had a +300K rollover here where the investigation showed cause as driver inexperience and unfamiliarity with route, but he was not found "negligent". Being found "negligent" or "not negligent" is _key_ to how the outcome may/may not play out in the end. In the case of the "sued" scenario, the mil driver breaking the law by running stop sign (ergo was "negligent") and thus causing the accident played a huge part in the outcome.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 Aug 2012)

There has already been some valid advice from knowledgeable members, but I'll supplement those with this.  While not legal advice, the Military Administrative Law Manual, Chapter 8 - Liability for Public and Non-Public Property provides a good explanation of the measures that can be taken against members of the CF to recover the cost of loss or damage to public and non-public property.  It expands on the QR&O/CFAO that deal with the issue.  There is much more than the snippet I quote below, but that portion illustrates the necessity of making an informed decision before objecting to an administrative deduction.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/mal-dam/miladminlaw-droitadminmil/chap8-eng.asp



> Limitations on the Power to Impose Administrative Deductions
> 
> . . . . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## fraserdw (25 Aug 2012)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> If you suddenly fine a member the amount of, or close to, their annual income, that member suddenly becomes *very* useless. Even if it's self-imposed, or if they "deserved" it, they're still in severe financial hardship. They've suddenly become a *huge * security risk.



There's a retirement plan for the totally useless, we do not use it enough, but if you damage it, you pay for it if it is your fault.  Civie company would make you pay and fire you for an at fault accident.  Which remains me, I got a 1/2 CFR to report from the Pictou AIrfield Engineers, Passed me doing 170KPH on my vacation.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> There's a retirement plan for the totally useless, we do not use it enough, but if you damage it, you pay for it if it is your fault.  Civie company would make you pay and fire you for an at fault accident.  Which remains me, I got a 1/2 CFR to report from the Pictou AIrfield Engineers, Passed me doing 170KPH on my vacation.



Did you have a radar gun on him? What proof do you have of them doing 170KPH?


----------



## aesop081 (25 Aug 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Did you have a radar gun on him? What proof do you have of them doing 170KPH?



He was probably going 165 and they passed him............ ;D


----------



## fraserdw (25 Aug 2012)

I was doing 130 in 110 in my vehicle and did a "WTF" when he passed me as if I was standing still.  So I caught up and paced.  My speedo said on my 2011 car said 170.  Ohhh and on the phone too!


----------



## aesop081 (25 Aug 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> I was doing 130 in 110



Then maybe you should report yourself as well. If not, STFU.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> I was doing 130 in 110 in my vehicle and did a "WTF" when he passed me as if I was standing still.  So I caught up and paced.  My speedo said on my 2011 car said 170.  Ohhh and on the phone too!



Broke the law also, did you? :

I drive a gov't veh daily. My boss gets reports sometimes about myself and others.

Bottom line, unless I got a ticket or got clocked on radar and reported by the police, it's all hearsay. Nothing he can do about it.

Disgruntled civies and the like make false claims about gov't vehicles all the time and we don't act on complaints from those that knowingly break the law and admit it. 

They just make an alleged dangerous situation even more dangerous by their vigilante action.


_edit-spelling_


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Aug 2012)

Driving back from Picton I was turning onto highway 2 and seen a truck coming up the road. He was still pretty far away so I made the turn. Turns out he was flying. Came right up on my ass and had to slow down but proceeded to ride my ass for a while. 
My usual SOP is to punch the breaks and make tail gaters panic but I had my kid with me so I just maintained the speed limit and carried on. 

Cool guy decides to give me the finger while passing me up hill around a blind turn, double line area of the road. To make it even better he had two beautiful golden retrievers tied up in the box of his truck, veteran plates and an arid cadpat ribbon sticker.  Good way to paint the CF in a positive light.


----------



## missing1 (25 Aug 2012)

" :tsktsk: My usual SOP is to punch the breaks and make tail gaters panic"

Just what everyone on the road needs


----------



## Neolithium (25 Aug 2012)

I just drive the speed limit.  Someone wants to get into a collision I refuse to let it be my fault.   I've been temped many a time to slam on the brakes, but in the end I find it not worth it.


----------



## mariomike (25 Aug 2012)

> " :tsktsk: My usual SOP is to punch the breaks and make tail gaters panic"
> 
> Just what everyone on the road needs



"Don't tailgate! Don't ever tailgate!  Do you know how much space is needed to stop a car traveling at 35 miles per hour? Six car lengths!":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEH9Zwo8JEM


----------



## MeatheadMick (25 Aug 2012)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> (snip)
> In retrospect, , the MSE section, while they did conduct the investigation on the damage, despite their ranting, had no authority to charge me, or collect any money, they can make all the recommendations they like in their report, but the authority to charge and *fine lies with the CO*.



^ exactly don't let the threat scare you... usually it's all it is... however if the OP really was negligent, it's a different story. Obviously without hearing any of the circumstances it's not possible to tell though.



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> I have driven that route several times and in similarly conditions, the only times I can recall being told authorized routes is when I was part of a convoy and it was in the road move orders. Other than that I was just given contact numbers and told "don't speed".
> 
> That being said I am not an MSE Op nor have I ever been part of Battalion Transport so I don't know all the rules and regulations.



Same deal. If I've been tasked with a driving task, and it's not part of a packet, generally you have some common sense to play with in regards to route. 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Broke the law also, did you? :
> 
> I drive a gov't veh daily. My boss gets reports sometimes about myself and others.
> (snip)
> ...



Last time I was a guardhouse MP this was always a huge problem. "MP's not wearing berets in vehicles, MP's speeding, MP's car is dirty, MP's are distracting drivers while doing speed traps" You name it... we got it...

*Edited for layout


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Aug 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> Last time I was a guardhouse MP this was always a huge problem. "MP's not wearing berets in vehicles, MP's speeding, MP's car is dirty, MP's are distracting drivers while doing speed traps" You name it... we got it...



I'm curious.  What did you do with those complaints - especially given the fact that it appears that there were many of them?


----------



## MeatheadMick (25 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> (snip)
> Lerch, same thing happened to me kind of. Had a Captain tell me I wasn't allowed taking a certain road in a city with the MSVS because it wasn't a MSR and if the MPs found out (despite being 100kms away) I would be charged and have my 404s taken away.  Of course the next day he takes the same road, I asked him about it not being an MSR and he said it's okay because he just needed to stop by the bank  :



Also the MP's wouldn't charge you... they'd investigate it, (if a complaint came in and it was in regard to contravening the CSD) and recommend charges to the unit CoC if applicable.



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I'm curious.  What did you do with those complaints - especially given the fact that it appears that there were many of them?



Well a lot of them were deemed frivolous complaints... mostly those regarding head-dress and dirty cars. The chain of command usually gave us shit anyway (especially for speeding), and would send a nastygram thru the dist. list. If it was a serious complaint the unit or the MP Complaints Commission would start an investigation, both of which can have dire consequences.  Since we're the ones that are enforcing the laws, if an MP is obviously going against the laws, it throws their credibility out the window. Everyone in the CF is bound by Criminal Code, and the Code of Service Discipline. MP's are also held to MP Code of Conduct and the outdated MPPTP's, which can essentially throw a huge sh*t fit into one's career if they're a knob.

There are definitely dickhead MP's out there, but because we can be viewed as the bad guys, there's a lot of CYA involved... including the CoC when a complaint is made. Even if it is found to be frivelous in nature, the offending MP will get there PP slapped in one way or the other.


----------



## FJAG (25 Aug 2012)

sumyungi

Let me start by telling you that before retiring I was a legal officer with the Office of the JAG.

There's some good advice for you in the material posted earlier as well as a good bit of misconception.

Let me summarize things for you.

1.   DND has no insurance. It's part of the government and is self insured. If a vehicle is lost or damaged the government absorbs the cost of that loss UNLESS someone else is at fault against whom the government can bring a claim by the crown. 

2.   Where under QR&O 38.01(1) a CF member wilfully or negligently causes loss or damage to public property then the member is liable to reimburse the crown for that loss etc.

3.   QR&O 38.01 lays out the processes by which administrative recovery takes place. (see also DAOD 7004-1)

The point is that there is a legal process within DND that springs into gear when your kind of incident occurs. A unit DND 424 MSE Accident Report will be done as a minimum. A Summary Investigation or Board of Inquiry and an MP investigation may also be involved depending on the circumstances. 

Claims of this magnitude will probably go through the local AJAG office and up to the Office of the Director, Claims and Civil Litigation who may or may not involve the Underwriters Adjustment Bureau to also investigate the circumstances of the accident  (especially if third party vehicle damage or injuries are involved).

All these folks work on legal principles and will look at all the circumstances of the case. In the event that this was a traffic "accident" you may find that even though responsible for the accident, it may be that you won't be held fully or even partially financially liable. However if they determine that your actions were negligent in the legal sense then they may seek recovery of some or all the costs involved.

I don't doubt that these proceedings may be confusing to you and I also know they don't resolve themselves overnight. 

Sitting where I am I can't tell how far into the process you are and whether what you are hearing is rumour or in fact a completed investigation. All I can tell you is the matter could very well be quite serious and you should consider getting some form of legal advice.


----------



## Haggis (26 Aug 2012)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Let me start by telling you that before retiring I was a legal officer with the Office of the JAG.



Where were you three pages ago???  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (26 Aug 2012)

The only time I have ever heard of an "authorized route" was during a road move, where you have to follow the route card for traffic control purposes (and so the wrecker knows where to come get you if needed). Diverting from a known route due to weather or other circumstances beyond your control should not be an issue unless you need recovery (in which case you better know where you are, otherwise they can't come get you), but taking frivolous side routes just adds time, burns fuel and really just makes the trip longer and more of a pain (especially in SMP vehicles).

As for the person who started the thread, I am glad they are getting good advice, but I am still burned by the "entitled" attitude of the poster. Grow a pair; if you were at fault then there are consequences. This applies to everything in your life, the sooner you realize this and act accordingly the better for you and everyone else.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Aug 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The only time I have ever heard of an "authorized route" was during a road move, where you have to follow the route card for traffic control purposes (and so the wrecker knows where to come get you if needed). Diverting from a known route due to weather or other circumstances beyond your control should not be an issue unless you need recovery (in which case you better know where you are, otherwise they can't come get you), but taking frivolous side routes just adds time, burns fuel and really just makes the trip longer and more of a pain (especially in SMP vehicles).
> 
> As for the person who started the thread, I am glad they are getting good advice, but I am still burned by the "entitled" attitude of the poster. Grow a pair; if you were at fault then there are consequences. This applies to everything in your life, the sooner you realize this and act accordingly the better for you and everyone else.



When transporting weapons (especially) in bulk, you are "supposed" to follow a designated route as well.


----------



## armyvern (26 Aug 2012)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> When transporting weapons (especially) in bulk, you are "supposed" to follow a designated route as well.



True that.


----------



## TN2IC (26 Aug 2012)

It hard for me to say right  now. But I do work in MSE Safety. Personally don't like it. But it's part of my trade. So if you go any questions in this field. I can try to help via PM.


*runs away*


The MP above me is right about complaints and looking into them. They are always knocking at my door for information.

As the cost capture part. TN does has a fund for damages. But TN was accepting all the damages for a long time. Now they are cost capturing back to the unit or the individuals. It is not right for TN to be coughing up the funds for something you did wrong. Yes we taught you, and gave you a DND 404. But you are the one whom is behind the wheel. Think of it as a member having an ND on a range. Simple charge. I will admit, some folks in the MSE Safety world do get a little horny when they see damages. It is part of their job. Just own up to what you did.


----------

