Truck News

Blog

Mudslinging over speed-limiter debate has gone too far


What has been most disappointing during the past couple of years is seeing the discussion about speed limiters become polarized and degenerate to mudslinging.
How else can I categorize last month’s remarks from Joanne Ritchie, head of the Owner-Operators Business Association of Canada (OBAC), that in considering speed limiter legislation the Ontario Ministry of Transport was “pandering to a handful of carriers who are either too cheap, too lazy or too greedy to compete fairly” and that “rather than pay their drivers a decent rate, invest in training and anti-idle technology, and implement internal safety and compliance regimes, those carriers have bamboozled government into taking these responsibilities off their shoulders.”
Come on Joanne. Aren’t you going overboard with those comments?
We both know which carriers are pushing for this legislation. They include some of the safest operations in the country. In fact one of the most vocal proponents of the legislation was recently voted the safest carrier in North America. Not only have these carriers invested in anti-idling technology, often before it was in vogue to do so, they’ve also spent millions implementing the latest training technologies. How much more do they need to invest, how many more safety awards do they need to win, to convince you that they care about safety, the environment and their drivers?
They’re so lazy they need the government to do their work for them? In many instances these are the same carriers that keep getting named to the list of the 50 Best Managed Companies in Canada year after year. It would seem they’ve figured out how to compete pretty well.
And from the carriers I know, most seem to have figured out how to compete successfully without breaking the rules on speeding or otherwise. They’re most often the ones that demand their drivers adhere to the rules, including hours of service, rather than expecting their drivers to speed and lie in their logbooks to deliver a shipment. Seems to me these are exactly the kind of carriers that if I was a driver or owner/operator that I would want to work for.
It also seems to me that while the issue has become politicized and polarized, these carriers are the only ones that have not lost sight of what’s most important: the reality that trucking is one industry of many competing for image, funding, and favorable legislation. Its perception among government and the public as a good corporate citizen willing to take the lead on issues such as safety and the environment will determine how the industry is treated in the future.
Joanne your intelligence and hard work have been a credit to both OBAC and our publication (your award-winning owner/operator column in Truck News is testament to that) but I think on this occasion you have let emotion run ahead of reason. For the sake of an intelligent debate on the speed-limiter issue and continued productive and respectful relations between owner/operators and carriers I hope you would consider retracting your remarks.


Lou Smyrlis

Lou Smyrlis

With more than 25 years of experience reporting on transportation issues, Lou is one of the more recognizable personalities in the industry. An award-winning writer well known for his insightful writing and meticulous market analysis, he is a leading authority on industry trends and statistics.
All posts by

Print this page

Related Posts



39 Comments » for Mudslinging over speed-limiter debate has gone too far
  1. Andy Small says:

    There are two and a half reasons speed limiters are not good.
    1)Safety. Yes that’s right, safety. When a truck driver is stuck behind a motorhome, or something similar who refuses to drive the speed limit, and drives 10 or 20 kmh under, eventually the trucker needs to pass. On a two lane hiway you need to do this fairly quickly because there are not a lot of breaks in the traffic. I am not saying to drive like a race car, but if the driver can go 10 kmh over the limit, he can make his pass a whole lot more safely. As for the law, there are very few cops who would ticket a driver for that little over.
    2)Again, safety. When you get right down to it, it is not speed itself that causes most accidents, but the difference in speed. The last time I was on the 401 I was only doing 120kmh, so I stayed in the slow lane so most people could pass me. Now you want all the trucks on that same hiway to do 100kmh and still do nothing about all the cars weaving in and out of all the trucks. If you want real safety, step up speed enforcement. There are other parts of this country where speed in any vehicle is not an issue, because everyone knows that they will get a ticket if they speed.
    3)This is the half reason. We have a charter of rights. I don’t think picking on truckers while ignoring all the car traffic is constitutional.

  2. Robert says:

    Mr. Smyrtis, I believe, is oblivious to the Imperialist mindset of marginalizing competition through legislation. It is a longstanding, first option business tradition in Canadian history. It also appears Mr. Smyrtis fails to comprehend the driver’s perspective as Joanne Ritchie so eloquently does. If Mr. Smyrtis (and other associations) embraces one position to the exclusion of another (without reasonable consideration) it exposes his/their own biases and passions. When someone is passionate about something it rightfully comes out in their communication. Mr. Smyrtis can passionately drone on for pages about (yawn) global warming but when someone passionately defends another position that possibly conflicts with his own biases they are asked to “retract their remarks”? It only shows the polarization or conflict within Mr. Smyrtis not Joanne Ritchie.
    It appears clear who owns Mr. Smyrtis’ opinion.

  3. George Philips says:

    I usually drive a pickup in and around Toronto and I never exceed 110 km/hr on the highway and usually stay at 105 km/hr or less. It would hugely improve road safety if trucks were limited to 105 km/hr. It would also contribute to lowering fuel consumption.
    We need more enforcement of speed limits for cars. Right now, cars are under some pressure to speed up to stay ahead of speeding trucks. Limiting truck speeds will cut down on excessive speeding by cars.

  4. jameslalderton says:

    Lou,one of those carriers you mentioned as safe and well managed,has a habit of duct taping their name on their trucks involved in accidents ,even before the tow truck has set them back on the wheels,even thought it would take a blind person not to recognize the paint scheme.This carrier is a well known supporter of speed limiters!How would a speed limiter prevent their truck from rolling on an entrance ramp,as was the case when I witnessed the duct tape incident?It would lead me to beleive the duct tape was in hope the general public did not assicate their name with a low speed wreck that would not be prevented with a speed limiter!

  5. Ray Camball says:

    Everyone is being squeezed by the increasing cost for fuel, car drivers, carriers and all signs indicate that fuel prices are heading upwards into the future over the long term. At highway speeds, pushing air is the major use of power and fuel and air drag is a function of the square of wind speed. No debate here, it is straight physics. If you decrease speed 10%, the power and fuel to push the air goes down 19%. If you slow down 20%, your fuel to push air goes down a whopping 36% – a huge savings to your pocketbook and bottom line. People can argue about whether the decision to slow down is done by a limiter, by police enforcement or by the drivers choice but whatever way it is done, people who understand the huge effect of air resistance and want to save their money or make more profit or stay in business will find ways to slow down. Some will continue to debate that they should be able to drive fast if they want and if they can afford the price of fuel , brakes, speeding tickets,rollovers and other accidents. I am certain that many or most people do not realize how much extra money it really costs them to push through air at higher speeds. Hopefully this will help some people who want to have more cash in their pocket at the end of each week.

  6. don bell says:

    i cant understand the mindset for limiting the speed of trucks make the opp do their job a hefty speeding ticket on #7 slowed me down

  7. Mike Kroetsch says:

    Really some interesting information speed limiters, fuel conservation, safety compliance. There are pro’s and cons to almost anything but when it comes to saving lives I do not think that anyone can argue. A number of years ago I recall listening to an MTO officer speak to the converted and he made a powerful statement “if the industry does not fix it government will regulate it” I think this was during the wheel off period when there was a serious problem. Keeping the quote in mind who is the root cause and who it the best to fix the problem? Of course it is the fleet operator. No one is the perfect carrier and even the award winning carriers are not perfect but they are making an effort to correct problems and be leaders in the industry.
    From information that I have read the speed limiters can provide two things to all involved (fleet owners, the owner ops, the people that we all share the roads with) that being fuel economy and safety.
    In the last 2 weeks I traveled to central Michigan and to Eastern Ontario and noticed the truck traffic had slowed down. I asked a group of drivers if they had noticed it during a safety meeting and they agree that they have noticed trucks have already voluntarily slowed down.
    Fuel, and speed could very easily be the difference for many between a profit and a loss.
    Mike Kroetsch
    Transportation Safety &Compliance Specialist

  8. Dorothy Sanderson says:

    Hello:
    JoAnne is bang on.
    I have recently read about all the Federal Government Handouts to many of the large Carriers–shame on you for saying they can compete.
    Perhaps you should post that info out there for all to see and read.
    We Owner/Operators are not so lucky.As usual we just make do with what we make.
    Regards
    Dorothy Sanderson

  9. Anita says:

    Just whose side are you on. You call yourselves a trucking publication and then don’t support truckers. You make it sound like people who drive trucks are idiots who have no brains. NO one wants to pay more for fuel ever, but to limit the speed of trucks and not address speeding cars is just flat out discrimination against those who drive trucks.

  10. Allan Quicke says:

    I read all the above comments and I concur with most of them. Lou, do you not agree that if all the police forces were to vigorous enforce the speed limits and aggressive driving habits of all motor vehicles, this would achieve the same objective as imposing a much despised government mandate. If, and only if, the stepped-up enforcement did not work, (and I can not see why it would not,) then and only then, should a measure like the speed-limiter be imposed ,on ALL MOTOR VEHICULE EQUIPMENT, not just commercial trucks. Please do not try to tell me that after a short period of public education, and the increased enforcement, we would need anything like a mechanical speed-limiter. Remember just how fast you must have traveled after you received your last speeding ticket. If anyone doesn’t have the intelligence to slow down, they won’t have a licence for very long. No insurance company will insure a fleet comprised of drivers with more than one or two tickets. All these problens can, and will only be solved with education and common sense.

  11. Frank says:

    As usual another “them vs. us debate” What ever happened to the “professional driver” and the good judgement he posseses?? Yes slowing down will save in many ways, but there will always be exceptions to the rule. I would like to see drivers treated with RESPECT and HONESTY instead of the name calling that has been happening here. It is our judgement that keeps these highways safe and no amount of legislation will change that! As a fuel saving measure REWARD drivers for saving money/fuel for the company…In short start treatings us FAIRLY , pay us an decent wage (Funny what other job has had no pay increase since the 80,s in some case,s?) If we are “Professionals” pay us as such!

  12. Alex Saville says:

    Speed limiters have been in use in Europe for a number of years. Here in the UK, on the motorways (like your 400 highways) there are long convoys of trucks in both lanes. Overtaking can be a long process. I usually set the limiter at 52km (max is 56km)and let others pass me, in some cases I slow down more. At my age (61 with over 43 yrs on the highway) I dont get get upset when others pass me! Speed limiters are political, they are there so goverment can demonstrate to the car driver who’s side they are on. If limiters were a safety item they would fit them to cars. They dont because any politician who advocated that would be find him(or her) self unemployed.
    The OTA has an equivalent in the UK, this is the Road Haulage Association. A toothless dog that takes anything the UK or European goverments throw at them. Diesel here is twice the cost in Canada and carries 80% tax. The RHA wont organise a stoppage because it is afraid of goverment. It is, however, a part owner of a driver bashing scheme called WELL DRIVEN? that allows the car driver to call and complain about the trucker. Vigilantes in cars!
    The only people who look after the truckers interests are the truckers themselves, when they get that message, things will improve. Self help is the only way. Park the trucks up! The French are real good at that. When they shout ‘Jump!’ their goverment asks ‘How high?’.Here in Scotland we did this twice in the 70’s. We got what we wanted. Nowadays, truckers dont stick together and refuse to organise themselves. They get what they deserve!
    Alex
    Glasgow Scotland

  13. Colette says:

    Joanne has my full support. I am now signing up for OBAC. You need to support the people who will stand up and fight. Not some pencil pushing politician who thinks that slowing down the truck traffic will prevent accidents. You want everyone to slow down, how about opening up the left lane to trucks after the speed limiter comes into effect. Those that think about making up these silly laws should spend a month on the Ontario roads to see who is the problem.
    Fighting For My Rights
    Colette Ayotte

  14. wayne edward oleary says:

    it seems to me that when someone disagrees with the big companys they are called trouble makers. as far as i know this is still a free country. while i may not agree with all joanne says i think this time she is right on the mark. the big companys have brought this argument on their selfs. when the goverment deregeluted the industry it was the big companys that wanted it now they want the goverment to regulate even more. i have been in this bussness since 1974 and i have never seen it so bad as it is now. we as owen operators should have the right to use our eqquipment in the way we want. with fuel as high as it is now anyone speeding must be either rich or stuipd. having said this there are times when we all need the extra speed to pass safley. if more people would get on the OBAC and OOIDA band wagons and stand as one group we could get the attention of some of the politicians. if anyone thinks that big companys will look after our good must have thier heads in the clouds. we can only get the things we need if we stand as one.

  15. al tutte says:

    Isn’t that what the speed limit signs on the highway are for? If you want to save fuel and operate safely put speed limiters on everything not just the big bad trucks. It has nothing to do with saftey and more to do with decreasing the costs for the large companies, who already have an advantage with cheaper fuel,tire and equipment cost.
    We have way too much government legislation in this country, We don’t need the government to tell us how to make money as they have already demonstrated how well they are able to manage our money(debt).

  16. Rolly De Roover says:

    Yes i drove for a few years my self .Ill side with Andy on this one i had a run in in Montana once with a freight ways truck he didnt drive the speed limit But when i went to Pass he would run me . I finaly got past but just bout run a car off the road, no I dont see that limiters are any safer than the Driver .
    thanks

  17. Wayne Robertson says:

    I agree with Joanne whole heartedly perhaps some in depth reasearch by the press would also reveal that many of the much lauded cerriers for saftey are the same crowd currently cutting the fuel surchage paid to their Owner Operators , One of those owners even had the gaul to tell his owner operators that if they would slow down to 100 k per hour they would not even notice the 7% cut in their fuel surcharge. Please give me a break and quit reporting the same tired OTA retoric and start reporting and commenting on the many reports and studies that refute this speed limiter nonsense. I personally do not need, want or require a speed limiter on my truck , MY fuel economy is just fine thanks ,I do not wish to have some government bureacrate screw up my operating expenses by fooling with the computor on my truck. like many have said or alluded to we have a police force which we as truckers have paid for many times over , its time they started doing their jobs, and do not give me that old argument that they are too overworked to enforce the speed limit ,they seem to always find time to stand on a corner and hand out money making seat belt tickets whick do NOT stop accidents from happening, or they also run the blitz every holiday weekend on the 400 series highwaysand did you notice tha totally of the wall crap that the four wheelers do and get reported on but I have not heard anyone with the guts to suggest we limit them.

  18. Wayne Rose says:

    What is needed here is some common sense, we are adults being treated like children. I thought we had police for a reason (to enforce the law) so make them do their job. If us as truckers do not learn that slowing down will save us money then the ones that do not will not be able to afford to do it very long. If you are looking at this for saftey reasons take winter into consideration I know that this has happened to some of you. If your trailer starts to come around on a slippery road and you have no pedal left to power out of it what happens to your trailer then, how many people can you hurt or kill with a jack knifing trailer. As for saving fuel not everybody has the same set up with gearing or transmission if you limit them to 105kms it may ending up costing them more money in the long run.
    If you are going to do this then do it across the board for cars and trucks or don’t do it at all.

  19. Rick Way says:

    I am opposed to any speed limiter legislation, even though we have been using them here since the mid ’90’s.
    In my opinion, the decision to use speed limiters is a mangement function, not something that needs government regulation. There is a complete set of speed limiters in force in the province now, and they are the posted speed limits, which are on every highway and road we all use.
    About the last thing the trucking industry needs these days is another set of governemnt rules, regulations and the cost associated with meeting them.
    Those who proposed this to the Ontario government were ill informed and out of touch with the industry. All well managed companies have been using speed limiters and the other trip data they produce for their benefit for years now.
    Rick Way

  20. Michael says:

    There we go, Wayne Rose hit the nail right on the head.
    CARS HAVE COMPUTERS TOO … AND THEY WORK JUST LIKE THE ONES IN TRUCKS !!!

  21. Jim Lawson says:

    If “award winning” carriers in Ontario want to control the speed on their trucks then why don’t they just do it? Why ask the government to mandate them to do it? I beleive these carriers fear that unless all carriers in the province are mandated to limit the speeds of their trucks then drivers will seek out employment with carriers who have not placed such restrictions on their fleet. The last statistics I saw indicated that nationally 4% of all accidents involving trucks were the fault of the trucker. The numbers do not add up to say this is a safety issue. The economy will regulate fuel consumption and speed in Ontario and elsewhere, and the police should enforce the laws that currently exist. Slowing down those big scarey trucks may be politically wise to those seeking votes, but lets get real here. Finally what about the out of province, out of country carriers that come into Ontario to deliver or travel through it? Divert all the money slated for complaince, enforcement, training, awareness, court cases, lawyers fees etc and offer cash incentives to those who install speed limiters on their trucks, then pass the cash incentives onto the drivers and let it be known to all that the highest paying driver jobs in this industry go to those that drive these “limiter rigs”.

  22. Dave says:

    Some of the above comments are bang on, others are downright humorous. My fleet is, and has been limited to 105 (depends if you go by GPS, radar or speedometer, or computer—none match by the way)for years. I have NEVER lost a driver to a company because their trucks went faster— Just about every other reason in the book though. Personally I dont WANT a driver or owner op that feels the need to speed. If thats his biggest concern…SEE YA! If you are working for a company that requires excessive speed to make a buck, then that is masking other issues, like base pay or fuel. All that said, I do not believe in mandated speed limiters. It is a purely political move that will do nothing for safety. We have speed limit laws now, like the others said…enforce them. Ask Ohio if it works. If my competitors are too stupid to slow down, let them waste money. I shake my head every day as trucks still go by me at 120…almost always owner ops with some ill conceived notion of defying the laws of physics. 100 is always better than 120, regardless of gearing, Every OEM has the data to back it up.

  23. Tim says:

    So Lou, how much did the OTA pay you to write that smear on Joanne Ritchie?
    It’s obvious you’re on their payroll now.

  24. Marlies says:

    Good grief, Lou wake up and get real!
    Sounds like Joanne Ritchie sees the big picture!
    It is partly thanks to people like you I am outta this industry! I thank all the folks like you Lou, for making up my mind for me to move into a different career!

  25. Ray Haight says:

    Thanx for your comments Lou, I like you was very disapointed to see the comments coming from the leader of OBAC. I have my opinion on this legislation that differs from most carriers and heve expressed them in my coloum as best as I could articluate. I also believe that name calling and sensationalisum is not the way to conduct intelligent debate. The actions of Ritchie are meant to enrich her membership numbers and secure her own job not to benefit this industry or the ongoing debate on the issue.
    Ray Haight

  26. bob says:

    Very short.This government lost 4 votes out of my family this incoming election over making me, and all other professional truck drivers imbeciles unable to follow even such a thing as speed limit road sign.I wonder,as trucker is one of the most common job that Canadian male hold,how many more votes they have lost? Thank you

  27. fred says:

    Joanne…..good for you!! don’t take back your comments. i believe we will have more accidents if we don’t have the speed needed to do a quick pass. Is government too stupid to realise that?

  28. Timothy Wllard says:

    Aftr 41 years on the road highway superslabs etc I dont believe in legislation for spped limiters my fuel mileage is right up there I run at 59 mph keep my costs down tire wear etc people who run fast do not last long police are out numbered but are put to meanial tasks (seatbelts) and such and as for logbooks has anyone asked someone who has 30 or 40 years experiece about such as in this case. I firmly believe we can regulate ourselves it is either that or loose our buisness that being said why legislation, it is just political to get votes let the police do there job as in ohio and michigan you either listen or loose and why are poeple who are suppose to be on our side pushing for such as in OTA case I am sorry I will not support them on this issue Tim willard

  29. Clarence Vanderhout says:

    Hey,the OTA has’nt been about the drivers for year.1st,it was about driver retention and a level playing feild,when nobody listened to the back room boys,it was time for attack no.2. They then tried to sell it on fuel saved.Back then fuel was about 70-80 cents a liter.Still nobody listened to the back room boys.BUT, not to give it up,they played the green card.Now every body was going listen.All the way to the top.With unproven data[the rest of us were waiting for the federal report]they found the liberals just waiting to find a way to deal with out of control drivers.And look at them run with it.And in a recent Truck News,there the OTA stood with their real partners,the ontario libs.Not a single driver in sight

  30. Eric says:

    Socialism vs. capitalism !!! Government is NEVER the answer. The large O.T.A. companies are advocating for MORE government(socialism=eww!)in a truly capitalistic industry. I truly admire SOME of these companies for success is always to be admired. I would some day like to be filthy rich and that is my right in this country. It should however be pointed out that at one point they too were small companies and that without capitalism and freedom, they would never have grown to be the large carriers they are today. Most of the large companies associated with the O.T.A are well aware that the amount of smaller companies and INDEPENDENT owner operators outnumber them by far. They would love to kill the idea of “independant truckers” for various reasons. They know that we are not all angry, rebelious, dumb gypsies. We play a much larger role in the industry than they realize. Sometimes positive and sometimes negative I will admit. Many of us are tired of being associated with these big companies who think they actually run the entire show. Some of us actually want to operate a real, legitimate trucking business without having to be “glorified” company drivers who happen to own a truck leased to a major carrier. Some of us enjoy the extra freedoms and opportunities. Some of us like to deal directly with shippers and dictate our own operating costs wich is usually much higher than the larger companies of course. I know of many shippers who prefer to deal directly with independents. These shippers are usually the ones who dont mind paying a little extra to have freight moved. I dont know very many lease ops who have done that well in the past 6 months. I can honestly say I have been doing better than ever… And, I barely ever drive over 100 km/hr. not anywhere. I simply find it amazingly hypocritical that a large, successful capitalistic company would advocate for ANY government socialism… O.T.A. please dont forget that OBAC is also associated with the Owner-operator independent drivers association(OOIDA) in the usa wich consists of many hundreds of thousands. Dont forget that OTA. Hundreds of thousands.

  31. Angelo D says:

    I used to bitch and moan about this subject to no end until it occured to me that what the future may hold for the proponents of such skewed logic is to only shoot off their own foot.
    As an owner/operator of late , I would like to cite the reasons why I could no longer pursue such a business venture . In 1997 , it was good and there was money for maintenance and renewing equipment . I was paying .50 cents per liter at the yard pumps and each truck was pulling in $2200 per week (local).The $7000–$15000 per year needed to maintain equipment was there . By 2002, when fuel had topped .80 per liter and rates wre not followed suit , in many cases,dropping, I decided to cut my loses and basic give the trucks away for a song.
    I can see Joanne Ritchies point all to well.She sees the extinction of the owner/operator.Guys like me and many others see this as “The last straw” and have no interest in making such fool hardy investments . Time and time again , I have watched as companies recycle trucks and drivers while taking a free ride on the credit ratings of drivers and there families.Hence the regemented recruiting programs to feed the only thing that matters . Keep the freight moving and watch the bottom line. The truth can be found in the fact that rates and wages have not changed much in 20 years . The $17 per hour of 1987 can still be found everywhere.
    It’s not all bad. As companies adopt all these cost saving measures, they missed the boat on what the outcome will be .here is glimpse into the future. You will be purchasing and maintaining your own equipment and as we adopt the “European model” of “Speed limiters” ,it would only be fair, local or line haul, that you would also adopt their hourly rate. The ball is in your court now.Play nice .

  32. D. Benn says:

    Tsk, Tsk. Lou and the gang at Truck News, always the mindless mouthpiece of the trucking associations. Few in this industry have less credibility with drivers. Strange how those so-called “award winning” trucking companies can’t get anyone to work for them, or that they haven’t come out in favor of black boxes for trucks. Nobody is better at scientific BS I guess. That should be the next reward they cook up for themselves.

  33. Rick says:

    Hi there I’m geting sick of this indursty and the way the ota is treating us out here its unfair to all the good divers that are out on the road trying to make a living but its just geting and harder & harder for anyone on the road to make money and buy sticking something elts out here its just going to make it worse for ever one and implamenting speed limiters on heavy trucks is the rong way of dealing with this problum and the OTA are here to help us this is just a big load of crap iv been in the trucking indursty for over 25 years and iv seen a lot over the years and i think this the rong way of dealing with this and i think that drivers in cars and trucks should have better education in what gose no out there on the highway . and one more thing were dose owyer charter of rights & freedom come into act in here or dose ower goverment not care no more . I think its high time that someone neads to do something about this noncence .

  34. Don says:

    Rick, you have summed it up. Certainly more than you know.

  35. Ron MacPherson says:

    I recently had a e test (Smoke test) done on my car. They put it on the machine and dyno. they did two tests, one at idle and one at road speed. The car was obviously made to run down the road and not idle. these are the two sets of numbers
    HC ppm @ road speed 28
    HC ppm @ curb idle 90
    CO% .05 @ road speed
    CO% .77 @ curb idle
    Road speed rpm was 2055 in high gear.
    curb idle rpm was 742. in neutral
    Does anyone see these numbers as I do.The government should remove all red lights as they produce more greenhouse gas.
    I don’t know but I’m sure that a little effort to find a shop with the same set up for big trucks would show the same results that my car produced.
    I would be interested in knowing HC @ 100 kph then at 120 kph. Your sample would also have to include different spec trucks. My CAT was spec to run fast but drive slow (So I can get the best economy). Detroits are set for a higher road speed rpm. Cummins the same.
    That simple test would put to rest the debate on green house gas. not just the speculation of some group pushing an agenda. But it might also show that California is right on with their anti idle law.
    Jo Anne has hit the nail on the head. These guys in their board rooms are similar to the ones that push drivle out in magazines. They believe that “THEY KNOW BEST” but proof is in the pudding. Here is a link to sonme stats http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/CrashProfile/statecrashprofilemain.asp?StCd=MI
    I checked MI,IL,IA,WI,SC,OH,. three of these states are split three are not.
    Here are the numbers for 2006.
    MI 4731 total accidents of large trucks, split speed state
    IL 6317 total accidents of large trucks, split speed state
    OH 4550 total accidents of large trucks, split speed state
    WI 2598 total accidents of large trucks, no split in speed
    IA 1581 total accidents of large trucks, no split in speed
    SC 2831 total accidents of large trucks, no split in speed
    a little surfing will show that states with split speeds show a higher amount of truck crashes with few exceptions.
    I got these numbers from the FMCSA
    While some of these people (OTA and suporting members) may have at one time drivin a truck.They are pretty much removed from the reality of driving todays roads and trafic.They are much more “bottom line concerned” than any of the issues that they claim to be worried about.
    Please belive that I do not support those that speed. I am a broker and I need to save every penny that I can. The trucks I see passing me are for the most part company trucks and a few O/O’s. Limiting us is just that. I will be limited to being able to pass ( a slow moving vehicle), I will be limited from pulling the unit straight in a slide ( never had to do that at 105 kph but hey who knows, I sure hope I don’t have to)
    Some parts of the proposed bill are excellent. The street racing gets full thumbs up from me. I hope that the bill is ammended to keep the good (street racing) and get rid of the bad (speed limiter).

  36. Marlies says:

    Good grief, Lou, are you ever shortsighted. Who seems to be doing the mudslinging now? Are you perhaps on a little vendetta over Joanne Ritchie winning that award?!
    Joanne Ritchie at least sees the bigger picture.
    I too know which carriers are pushing for the speedlimiter regulation. Since I was out there on the road with their drivers I can honestly say I wouldn’t pay a nickel to have some of them working for me!
    It is partly because of people like you, your carrier executive buddies and all the new regulations and restrictions that keep on getting implemented, I am out of this business as of last week-end. So, I want to Thank You for helping me move on!
    By the way, if you know of someone who is interested in buying a spotless 2004 Kenworth W900L please send them my way.

  37. Richard Lee says:

    I usually drive a pickup in and around Toronto and I never exceed 110 km/hr on the highway and usually stay at 105 km/hr or less. It would hugely improve road safety if trucks were limited to 105 km/hr. It would also contribute to lowering fuel consumption.
    We need more enforcement of speed limits for cars. Right now, cars are under some pressure to speed up to stay ahead of speeding trucks. Limiting truck speeds will cut down on excessive speeding by cars.
    Posted by: George Philips | May 12, 2008 05:23 PM
    =====================================================================================
    Here is a perfect example of someone who do not have any idea what he is talking about.
    There was a time when smaller vehicle drivers had respect for trucks, now they want to get rid of the trucks on the highways.
    They cut trucks off just to get infront then put the brakes on to intimidate the driver.
    Changing lanes coming up to a red light cutting the trucks stopping distance.
    Making a right turn on a red light as the big truck enters the intersection.
    When a truck gives a signal to change lanes the speed-up and stay alongside so the driver can’t make the change. Making U turns in an intersection infront of trucks.
    If the fines were raised double or triple plus demerit points, and increase those fines for the ofences made after that, you would see some big changes then.
    Revenue would ease the tax increases so that the low income people could save some of their income.
    Sure If every vehicle is limited to speed then there would be less speeders, less accidents and less selfish idiots on the road.
    You have to be on the roads to see what I see instead of guessing about it.
    Thank You,
    Richard

  38. mike says:

    Whay stop at 105 pay us by the hour $25.00 per hour I will drive at
    what ever speed you decide.

  39. Rick Gaskill says:

    I regularly drive from the U.S. into Ontario and have watched the speed limiter arguments on both sides. There are quite a few similarities. Opposition on both sides can produce at least three documented studies proving speed limiters increase the risk of accident. Supporters on both sides make deceptive statements they can’t provide data to support. I’d like to see one Canadian carrier produce documentation their fleet saves $10,000 per truck per year by having speed limiters installed. For those that ask what the purpose for speed limiters is – if not for safety – read this: http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=56699. The ATA says speeding trucks have an economic advantage and speed limiters will level the playing field. Evidence ATA and Canadian truckers believe speeding gives an economic advantage can be seen on any U.S. Interstate with 55 m.p.h. truck restictions where companies like U.S. Xpress, Jet Express, Doug Coleman Trucking, Challenger and other speed limiter supporting companies can be seen running up the left lane 10 m.p.h. over the speed limit. I haul hazmat chemicals and am very aware of what companies have drivers operating recklessly around me. Pat Quinn, President of U.S. Xpress was the most vocal ATA chairman for speed limiters. Go to Safestat and enter U.S. Xpress’s DOT number 303024 and check their history to see what kind of a safety rating they had in 2007, when they were petitioning for speed limiters. It’s all about economics.
    If the Ontario Provincial government was really concerned about conserving fuel, highway safety, and reducing greenhouse gases, they’d bury their trash in their own backyard instead of hauling it across the Province into Michigan.

Have your say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*