Road safety is an admirable goal by every measure, and the measures applied to meet that goal evolve over time. Evidence can be found across every truck that travels a Canadian highway, from the daytime running lights, to antilock brakes, underride guards, reflective markings, and even seatbelts. There was a time when freight moved without any of them.

Safety-related measures are not limited to vehicles alone, of course. Quebec’s new Road Safety Action Plan includes commitments to lower speeds in school zones, increase the use of photo radar, and boost the training needed to earn a Class A licence.

But one passing reference tucked within Quebec’s latest plan is concerning. The province also wants the Quebec Standards Bureau to develop a “safety index” for heavy vehicles in a bid to help protect vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians.

Essentially, the index would apply a score based on factors like a driver’s field of vision, mirrors, cameras, blind spot detection systems, alarms, lights, and side guards.

While such scores would not be binding, a municipality could conceivably adopt ratings above and beyond any Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) when deciding which trucks can enter a city center. A Direct Vision Standard in London, England, for example, requires trucks to earn a unique safety permit before traveling through Greater London. Equipment that fails to earn enough stars under that system needs to be upgraded with tools like blind spot cameras, proximity sensors, and side guards.

Conflicting standards

But what if more jurisdictions take a unique approach to such matters? If Montreal adopted a Quebec standard that promoted side guards, what would stop Toronto from adopting an Ontario-made standard that promoted side guards with different features? Fleets and owner-operators that travel the Windsor-Quebec corridor would be forced to meet the toughest requirements in the mix.

There’s no guarantee such equipment would be readily available even if it’s required, either. While Ontario wants Safe, Productive, Infrastructure-Friendly (SPIF) configurations to include an in-cab emergency lift axle override switch, enforcement plans for such controls had to be delayed because manufacturers were slow to engineer uniquely provincial solutions.

And the attorneys who represent plaintiffs after a collision would undoubtedly be anxious to show how a particular truck failed to earn a perfect rating, even if it met all legislated requirements.

Nightmares emerge whenever individual jurisdictions carve unique regulatory paths. The struggles range from Canada’s patchwork of allowable weights and dimensions to the emerging standards that govern vehicle emissions.

While Environment and Climate Change Canada largely adopts standards embraced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California marches to the beat of the California Air Resources Board’s drum. Not to be outdone, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority still has plans for a Rolling Truck Age Program that, while deferred, looks to ban container-hauling trucks with Model Years older than 2006.

A proven approach for standards

In contrast, there is already a proven approach to developing broader safety standards for all tractor-trailers. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), for example, are now proposing mandated automatic emergency braking systems (AEB) for heavy vehicles. Transport Canada is monitoring that with an eye to ensure vehicle safety standards are aligned on both sides of the border.

Fleets can still upgrade equipment beyond minimum safety standards, of course. But a flexible approach allows them to focus investments on the options that will best address their unique challenges and operations.

They’ll continue to make such investments, too. It’s because safe trucks are good for business, even without another government rating system.