Truck News

Blog

The real case on speed limiters


I’ve sure been hearing a lot this summer about the dismissal in an Ontario court of a speed limiter ticket given to driver Gene Michaud because the justice of the peace ruled the province’s speed limiter law for heavy trucks is unconstitutional.
If you drive truck in Ontario or Quebec, and hate the legislation, should you be excited? Is this the ticket to get the legislation knocked off the books?
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), which funded the legal challenge, and the Owner-Operators’ Business Association of Canada (OBAC) certainly are enthused about what they see as “the first nail in the coffin of this useless law.” The MTO thinks otherwise and plans to keep on enforcing the law and Canadian Trucking Alliance CEO David Bradley, whose association pushed for the legislation, says he’s not worried this decision will set a precedent.
I’m not so sure about that. I think it can only lead to more court challenges every time a trucker is caught without a speed limiter in Ontario or Quebec.
What I am sure about is that fighting the speed limiter law is NOT in the best interests of our industry. Yes, I know, many owner/operators and drivers don’t agree. (And I also know you will let me know about it soon enough…lol)
But I don’t have to tell you about the negative impact high diesel costs have on fleets and owner/operators alike. Nor do I have to tell you that trucking has a big X on its back because of its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. (The commercial highway freight sector has the fastest growing energy demand of any economic sector in Canada.)
Reducing speed is a proven way to significantly reduce both fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. And it actually leaves more money in your pocket at the end of the day. So why fight such a law?
You may argue that fuel costs are a pass through expense – the shipper pays a fuel surcharge. Well, shippers are getting wiser and starting to question what exactly they are paying for. They may not mind helping carriers survive the volatility of fuel pricing but they sure as heck are not going to pay fuel surcharges to carriers who are not serious about fuel conservation. Why should they?
You may argue, as do OBAC and OOIDA, that speed limiters are not safe. Justice of the Peace Brett Kelly raised that issue in his decision.
Okay, in that case OBAC and OOIDA need to outline the situations that would require a driver to accelerate above 105 kmh in order to be safe and how common such circumstances would be. Based on everything I’ve read from the two associations on this issue over the past few years, their claims on the negative safety impacts are much ado about nothing. What happened to all the traffic mayhem we were guaranteed we would see if this legislation came into effect? Could it be that it didn’t materialize because it was just fear mongering masquerading as valid concern?
Ontario road fatalities reached their lowest levels in the past 68 years, making the province the safest jurisdiction in North America, the year the legislation was brought into effect. Maybe it was just a good year, even though large truck fatalities dropped by 24%.
I will ask you to consider this, however: If speed limiters are so unsafe why is the insurance industry, which ultimately pays for the cost of accidents, not speaking out against speed limiters?


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


43 Comments » for The real case on speed limiters
  1. Harry Rudolfs says:

    I was wondering if the OPP had given up monitoring speed limiters as cruising speeds seem to be going up on the 401. But recently I saw a couple of rigs stopped and it looked like the officer was downloading something from the console. If you’ve got your speed limiter turned off and you’re doing less than 105, chances are good you’ll never get caught. But if you’re running at 110, look out!

  2. meslippery says:

    How is then Lou we can be trusted to operate safely in school
    zone,s but not on the 401?

  3. meslippery says:

    was wondering if the OPP had given up monitoring speed limiters as cruising speeds seem to be going up on the 401. But recently I saw a couple of rigs stopped and it looked like the officer was downloading something from the console. If you’ve got your speed limiter turned off and you’re doing less than 105, chances are good you’ll never get caught. But if you’re running at 110, look out!
    Posted by: Harry Rudolfs | July 26, 2012 04:43 PM
    OK Harry but you still can do 100 in a 50 or 60 but you do not
    because you are a truck driver.

  4. Seth says:

    geez Lou time to quit being a mouthpiece for Bradley and his minions at the OTA, time to stop taking you guys at the Truck News as journalists. You guys should put the OTA/CTA logo on your propaganda paper you put out every month.

  5. meslippery says:

    But I don’t have to tell you about the negative impact high diesel costs have on fleets and owner/operators alike.
    So lou if I speed for a minute or two to pass the end
    result is bankruptcy ?

  6. Dutch van Noggeren says:

    Normally I cruise at 100k. If I am overtaking another truck who is running at 98 or 99, wouldn’t you like to see me accelerate to 110 so I can get by and out of the way of the 4 wheeler behind me who wants to go 120. I don’t want to run fast – it wrecks my fuel mileage, but I want to be able to accelerate over 105 when I feel I need to. If you’re that hot on speed limiters, push for a law that makes every vehicle have them. See how far you get with that. As far as trucks maintaining a high speed of 120 or more – where are the police? I don’t see that problem in Ohio or California 0r Oregon, and for that matter very rarely do you see a truck doing more than 65 mph in Michigan. Why? Because those states strictly enforce their speed laws. Why doesn’t Ontario spend more time enforcing speed laws and less time enforcing speed limiter laws?

  7. Heather says:

    I see Lou’s point. Why fight a rule that helps conserve fuel, reduces pollution, etc.? Perhaps efforts fighting against the speed limiter law would be better used elsewhere. He raises some valid points.
    However, why aren’t all the other provinces implementing speed limiter legislation if they’re truly that great?
    I realize that implementing legislation takes time but it seems that there is no interest among the other provinces to follow Ontario and Quebec. Any thoughts about this?

  8. Greg Decker says:

    I drive 100km/h BUT there are times when you NEED to drive the posted speed limit to lessen your impact on traffic!! An example would be in Florida where the highway’s are full and the speed limit is 75mph. Drive 62mph around Tampa FL and watch how thousands of cars will be forced to pass. You can then see the stupid acts excelerate!! ENFORCE the current laws instead of passing laws ALLOWING politicans to IGNORE the laws on the books already. IF Ontario and Quebec enforced the speed laws there would be no need for speed limiters.
    By the way the majority of speeding trucks in Ontario are Ontario base plated!! You almost never see an out of province truck speeding. Maybe it is the Ontario drivers who need their knuckles rapped and not the rest of North America!!

  9. I will ask you to consider this, however: If speed limiters are so unsafe why is the insurance industry, which ultimately pays for the cost of accidents, not speaking out against speed limiters?
    “Really”, I thought it was the customers at large that “ultimately” paid the cost of accidents while insurance companies grow fat in the process….. my mistake.
    As an owner operator which manages to maintain a consistent year in / year out, 5 mpg (winter) and 6 mpg during the other 8 months of the year while pulling a super b through some of the toughest terrain in British Columbia, it is confounding to me to hear people say that “speed limiters” will save fuel: Smart drivers save fuel, stupid drivers don’t – end of story. Want to save fuel – “manage” your company – cull your fleet and pay the drivers who deliver the results you desire; a simple business plan that doesn’t require an investment in anything other than the driver. (It’s crazy thinking – I know, but give it a whirl, you may be surprized at the result)

  10. CWatson says:

    You are so right about the fuel issue, now lets get everyone on a speed limiter. By the way, setting your home thermostat to 68 in the winter and 72 in the summer is a great way to save energy as well. Perhaps the government can come up with a limiter for that as well.

  11. meslippery says:

    You are so right about the fuel issue, now lets get everyone on a speed limiter. By the way, setting your home thermostat to 68 in the winter and 72 in the summer is a great way to save energy as well. Perhaps the government can come up with a limiter for that as well.
    Posted by: CWatson | July 30, 2012 12:57 PM
    ——————————
    CWastson Dam you, now Dalton will do just that.
    Put some thing like EOBRs in in our homes to save energy.
    Wait for it dont laugh.

  12. Stephen Large says:

    Lou…You just don’t get it! Speed limiters will NEVER be something that drivers with lots of experience are interested in! Of the 8 or 9 drivers who have commented on this blog alone, there are a few of us that have been out here doing an excellent job for many years, safely, and there is NO WAY that a speed limiter will improve what we are already doing every day! You should consider this: Larry Hall – 30 years and 3-4 million miles ( mostly 8 axle b-trains in BC and the west where there are extreme roads and grades and weather), Greg Decker – 20 plus years and a couple million miles, Dutch van Noggeren – over 30 years and 3-4 million miles, meslippery – 30 years and 3 million miles, and myself – 28 years and 3.5 million miles (mostly hauling oversize/overweight loads on multi-axle lowboy trailers all over North America-accident free!). How’s YOUR resume, Lou? That’s what I thought….ALL of us have driven in reverse about as far as you have driven, period! WE DON”T WANT SPEED LIMITERS! If YOU want one, then fill your boots and put one in your car! Don’t pretend that forcing everyone to have them is going to provide ANY benefit to anyone!

  13. Just Dave says:

    To all you guys that have posted. Kudos. You are right on the mark. Personally, I have had my trucks governed at +/- 65 for years. And we run 48 states. But it should be MY choice as a business owner. That said…This law is stupid and self serving to the OTA. Why do you need a law to prevent breaking another law? Why does it not apply to all vehicles? Oh yeah, the politicians would get laughed out of office.
    EOBR will be the next successful OTA-Trucknews (yes, they are hyphenated on purpose)agenda item. Same reason. all this electronic crap is easier due diligence than trying to police your drivers with a functioning safety department.
    What’s after that? In Ontario, probably smoke detectors in truck cabs, a strobe light that flashes if if you pick your nose, and an alarm that goes off if you lie to your dispatcher.
    Keep on trucking safe boys.

  14. Patrick Smith says:

    Lou, can you beat the speed limiter law with a stick any more? Move on editor, move on. Show us you can write about some that more industry changing or technical about future equipment etc. Just to give you a head up mine is getting open up as they say I still do my 96 kph but at least I can make up a BC/AB hill without impeding traffic. If that makes me a criminal then I’m a criminal. But a least I’m a safe criminal.

  15. Doug Brown says:

    You might want to do your homework, Lou. Trucks without a speed limiters, do not require speed limiters. These would be trucks with mechanical engines. All trucks with electronically controlled engines have speed limiters. This is the “top vehicle speed” parameter in the ECM. Media types seem to imply that the speed limiter is a devise that is added to the truck.
    Also, fatality rates in truck involved crashes is going down all over North America. Ontario is making the claim that the reason for this in Ontario, is a result of the speed limiter legislation. How do you explain similar numbers in other jurisdictions?
    David Bradley and his followers are more concerned about a level playing field than they are about safety and the environment. If slowing down and saving fuel was the real story, would they not ensure that their drivers conformed to the speed limit on highways other than the 400 series highways? In northern Ontario, where the speed limit is 90kph, OTA and CTA members allow their trucks to be driven faster than the posted speed limit. After-all, slowing down saves fuel, right?
    Slowing down really does save fuel. I have proven it and I’ve made a lot of money over the years as a result. If the competition wants to blow the profits out the stack and spend more money on maintenance, let them do it.
    There are many OTA members operating non aerodynamic trucks and lead foot drivers. One would think that these groups would clean up their own act and lead by example before imposing their desires on others.

  16. GRK from Oakville, ON says:

    Not sure why we need the government to waste our time and money legislating speed limiters. What we need is less government. Once again Lou; another left leaning piece on your part……

  17. meslippery says:

    Why do you need a law to prevent breaking another law? Just Dave
    I like it.
    Over to you LOU.

  18. Kurt says:

    If being against limiters is a bad idea, then the editor must think they are a good idea, and certainly the trucking industry should not hog a good idea! Perhaps he could crusade for all of the motoring public to have this good idea! Let us know how that turns out.
    As for safety, (other than a source of road rage when 2 limited trucks take excessively long to pass one another), I was taught that in a blow out situation, especially with a steer tire, to mash the throttle to regain the directional momentum and control. If you are driving along with the cruise on and can go no faster, this is not possible.

  19. meslippery says:

    Hadnt heard that before Kurt but I know it to be true if you
    start to jack knife.
    That is why province’s speed limiter law for heavy trucks is unconstitutional.

  20. Dan says:

    I am not a proponent of speed and generally run at 100kmh, but always scratch my head when see everyone( read cars) doing everything but respecting the speed limits on the highway.
    How is it that you can buy a Mustang or Camaro with high horsepower engines in excess of 550 hp or even just about every family cars have terminal velocities well in excess of 160 kmh and yet no-one sees fit to electronically govern them. Someone explain to me why the four wheeler has the power to determine how quickly they will go with impunity and yet the govenment sees fit to impose electronic restrictions on trucks. Are we not of the same species. Why do we have 2 levels of governance. Make it the same for all! If there are proven worries about safety, fuel economy, etc…is it not the same for cars, motorhomes and the like.
    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
    My 2 cents…lol

  21. G. Paul Langman says:

    Hey Stephen L. Here we go again. I really don’t have time to say all I’d like to, except there are many good comments here (certainly I don’t agree with all!). Just add me to your list Stephen – I first remember moving an oversize load in the summer of 1975, I have copies of log books for every day of my life since June of 1978 in my basement, and I don’t have time to add up all those miles on those pages!!! I got work to do!!

  22. Stephen Large says:

    There you go, Lou – another driver with nearly 40 years verifyable experience (That would be around 4 MILLION MILES, Lou!!) who agrees with me! I would like Lou to go for a ride in a truck with any one of the people I have mentioned in my previous comment, or especially with Mr. Langman! He would see that we each have our own speed limiters – mine is 6’3″ tall and weighs about 330# and has been successfully limiting the speed of my truck for nearly 30 years!

  23. jimh says:

    Lou, if speed limiters are such a great idea, why are we not mandating their use in cars? It seems to me that not allowing car drivers to have access to such a life saving device (after all Truck News/OTA implies that they are responsible for a 24% drop in truck accidents) is EXTREMELY irresponsible if not downright criminal. What we need is a hotshot lawyer to make the argument in court when a speeding car hits a truck that the trucker is a victim because the car was not speed limited.
    Quote from Lou: “I will ask you to consider this, however: If speed limiters are so unsafe why is the insurance industry, which ultimately pays for the cost of accidents, not speaking out against speed limiters?”
    My question is: If speed limiters are such an effective safety device, why is the insurance industry, which (you say) ultimately pays for the cost of accidents, not speaking out FOR speed limiters on ALL vehicles? BTW Lou, the insurance industry does not ultimately pay for the cost of accidents, their customers do. If speed limiters are responsible for a 24% drop in accidents, does that mean speed limited truckers will get a 24% discount on insurance? THAT would be a huge incentive wouldn’t it Lou?
    If speed limiters are such a great idea, why did the industry have to be forced, by law, to activate them? Why did the big companies not do it on their own? Are they really so irresponsible that they would not do it until they were forced to? It seems so.
    If it’s all about safety, why don’t trucking companies simply require their drivers to obey the posted speed limits, and discipline them when they do not? They have that ability, you know. Try driving on say Hwy 17, with a 90 KM/H speed limit, and count the number of OTA trucks that pass going 105. What safety advantage does a speed limiter provide in, for example, a 60 KM/H zone? It would be interesting to see the statistics from pre-limiter Ontario on how many truck crashes involved speeds of over 105 km/h, which are, of course, the only accidents in which speed limiters have any effect whatsoever. Did that 24% reduction come about solely by eliminating accidents at over 105 Lou? I hardly think so.
    If it’s about fuel economy, why did the big companies have to be forced by law to activate their speed limiters? Would they not have done so on their own if they knew that there were such huge fuel savings and safety advantages?
    This law is basically just an admission by the OTA members who pushed for it that they cannot control their own enployees driving habits due to their lack of management ability.
    They say that the fuel consumption difference between a good driver and a poor driver is 35%. If OTA is so concerened about fuel economy, why do they not offer training to drivers to improve their fuel economy? Oh wait, then they would probably have to pay more to a driver with better skills, wouldn’t they? Of course OTA has admitted that driver pay levels must increase, but you don’t see any of them putting their money where their mouths are do you? Perhaps we need legislation to force OTA members to increase driver’s pay levels as well. But that is a whole ‘nother story.
    BTW, the reason that Ontario can claim to be the safest jurisdiction in North America is that the vast majority of traffic in the most populous area (GTA) is at a standstill due to the inadequate roads. Cant get into an accident if you are not moving. What can speed limiters do to help solve that problem Lou?

  24. Stephen Large says:

    Hey, jimh, you have driven home nearly every point there is and I will bet you that Lou (and all his heores at OTA)still will not respond to any of the points that any of us have made on this blog!???

  25. meslippery says:

    Ontario on how many truck crashes involved speeds of over 105 km/h, which are, of course, the only accidents in which speed limiters have any effect
    Good point jimh
    Big Carriers all ready speed limited there trucks but small
    ones did not so we need the gov. to level the playing field.
    Because the big ones cannot pay enough to compansate for the
    slow speed.

  26. Daemon says:

    considering that the original justification for speed limiters was all the speeding heavy trucks as justified by OPP, and OPP’s own statistics that over 80% of all speeding tickets issued to heavy trucks were for speeds UNDER 80kph, I wonder why the issue was let pass into law in the first place?

  27. John says:

    There are lots of back and forth but there is a fairly simple solution to the issue I think. On the DDS60 engines in the programing a passing mode can be set up, in this mode after quickly hitting the pedal 3x the engine will bypass the speed liminter for a set speed and amount of time. The diver can now quickly pass another truck and then resume 105 again.

  28. Stephen Large says:

    Hey John – with my 3408 Cat there is a system that also works very well! When you want to pass, you shift both gearshifts toward the dash and step on the throttle. The 18 liter V-8 Cat rolls out a tiny bit of smoke and instantly passes the other vehicle. Once safely in front of the other vehicle, just back off a bit and shift the aux. trans back to 3rd and carry on at whatever the speed limit is, or, more importantly, whatever speed the DRIVER chooses to safely drive according to road and weather conditions, speed zones, up or down hill grades, traffic volumes, or size/shape/weight of the load. The problem with having everything “Idiot proof”, is it attracts IDIOTS! The driver is THE ONLY thing that needs to be in control of the speed of the vehicle!

  29. John MacRae says:

    The problem with having everything “Idiot proof”, is it attracts IDIOTS! The driver is THE ONLY thing that needs to be in control of the speed of the vehicle! Posted by: Stephen Large | August 17, 2012 06:44 PM
    ^^^ Quoted for truth. What this industry needs is proper training for newbies, simple as that. And vigorous enforcement of the laws now on the books, both for trucks and four wheelers.)speed limiters excluded, of course) Speed limiters and EOBR’s won’t suddenly make the folks that graduated from a 2 week driving school any better than they are now, nor will it reduce the number of accidents we see every day. (which, in my 38 years on the road, is getting worse). Just yesterday I saw a newb with a brand new Freightliner pulling a reefer miss his exit near Battle Creek MI. He decided it would be a good idea to ease down thru the ditch to catch the off ramp at 60mph. Kinda ended in tears for the doofus, as well as his carrier.

  30. greg says:

    I for one dont agree with the limiter law, but also believe 90 percent of drivers dont agree either. One thing i know for certain,is that the trucking industry has more people hired than any other companys in canada or the usa. If all truckers would just VOTE and Vote the same,we would be the greatist threat to politicans. We the truckers would have more power than gov. unions,and politicians would cater to us to get our vote. Things would change fast for the trucking industry.

  31. JD says:

    Quote; Hey John – with my 3408 Cat there is a system that also works very well! When you want to pass, you shift both gearshifts toward the dash and step on the throttle. The 18 liter V-8 Cat rolls out a tiny bit of smoke and instantly passes the other vehicle.
    Ha ha, your 3408 must be more efficient than mine Stephen cause my 3408 rolls out LOTS of smoke when you hit it. LOL
    Seriously, all small carriers can do what I have done to help remedy this situation, instead of renewing your membership in the OTA just send them a letter stating why you no longer wish to contribute or be a member. Sooner or later they will get it, probably just about the time that they realize that their revenues are no longer matching expenses… just like lots of small carriers

  32. Mickey Roy says:

    I feel this is very unfair…I agree why not govern all vehicles on our roadways? I offer my drivers fuel bonuses…even though they are governed at 105 kph…our company speed averages 48-51 mph and obtains a 6.85 MPG average for the fleet…but when you run the 401 and you get caught up (in what I call the cluster *&^%!) it would be nice if my guys had the ability to pass in less then 5 km…cause thats how long it takes to overtake another truck going 1/2 km slower…and as far as i’m concerned this is dangerous!
    As a 4 wheeler I hate driving the 401 now as it’s a heavy truck drag race during busy times…not that I’m speeding but when i come up on a couple of dozen trucks…I want to get out of their way and get ahead…just in case!
    Anyway I could type for days…but at the end of the day it goes on deaf ears!!!

  33. John says:

    Well I wish I had a 3408 cat with two stick tranny, I always liked my old 5 an 4 just not many around anymore 🙂

  34. Tom macKay says:

    Hey Mickey, If the trucks you are passing are running along at 100-105 kph and you are passing them then I suggest you are speeding. Speeding is going beyond the posted limit. And as you say you are trying to stay out of their way, then it would be prudent to stay behind them and not in front, in their way.
    I have no problem with speed limiters on trucks and think all vehicles should be speed limited. It cost many dollars to have police writting tickets for people who could care less and will continue to speed. Hell most Government vehicles travel at 20 kph above the limit. I say have the police hand out tickets to those inconsiderate^%$# who drive with auxillary lamps on within the city. Using auxillary lamps and not turning them off for oncoming traffic carries the same fine as failure to dim high beams.

  35. Terry Andersen says:

    The people who think speed limiter are the way to go are right from the age of 16 to 21 the driver should be limited these the the people who are just learning and need to learn how to drive before they can be going wide open. Now if they think the trucker is the one who is out of control when is the last time you read of hi speed persuit of a truck. It would also stop street racing if the child who is out for a street race can only go 60k, they can now get to 60 k real fast and then that it. If all car were limited to the speed or there about of the provinces hi-ways then it would be a lot harder for the criminal to out run the cops also. I do not know why when there is an accident involving a truck that it is not treated like an industrial accident just like they would for any construction site would be and then maybe the trucker could get so fair treatment. And stop being blamed for choices other people make. ie. if the truck driver gets cut off by a car and the person has to stop suddenly how is this the trucker fault most time the insurance company will pay for the cars damage because it is cheaper than defending the trucker right to go to work safely. Which is why we have insurance.

  36. meslippery says:

    Lou check out the front page of September 2012 Truck News.
    O/O of the year boasts safe 50-year career.
    How Lou ? with out speed limiters or EOBRs
    Guess we dont need them.

  37. meslippery says:

    Posted by: Stephen Large | August 8, 2012 12:50 AM
    Hey Steve if you join cyber CB I can PM you and we can exchange
    E-mail
    meslippery

  38. Stephen Large says:

    Hey, meslippery, that sounds pretty technical for a farm boy like me. I’ll try to figure it out.

  39. Ray cox says:

    Hi i am a english trucker, over here we have had speed limiters fitted
    To our trucks over 20yrs .when first introduced the speed was going
    To be 50mph that was scrapped so they set it to 56 mph. Over years
    They dropped the speed to 54 & 52 mph.these are compulsory
    Fitted to trucks under uk & European regulations.this for
    Motorway/highway.

  40. Harry says:

    The biggist problem I see is the OTA which is made up of these big companies CEO’s who want to control the independant who they think is a threat to them F

  41. Dutch van Noggeren says:

    Harry, I think you nailed it. Short and sweet, you stated what it’s all about. Thank you!

  42. not so dumb says:

    HAY why not try it on your car for a year tell us how much you love it and all the gas you save. You do not need to speed or ever go more than 105.Please let us know how it works. You can get it done at any car dealer.

  43. Steve Maguire says:

    OTA seeks mandated, regulated and scrutinized training, not speed limiters. Its undemocratic.
    Ergo: it goes against all pillars of Westrn Ideologies where a demographic area cannot dictate to a larger
    area that is assumed to be the same style of government. BC does it too. Years of off road logger trucks
    that would emerge from the bush with runway landing lights and neglect to immediately turn them off.
    This resulted in an outrage and the law they enacted encompassed black covers or an immediate fine
    of $260. Unfortunately, not every trucker carries the local statutes of every state/province he/she runs in.
    Had they properly enacted the law, issuance of one time warnings at the scale to have said covers next time
    the province was entered, the leisure, power andy to intelect preerved.
    The ability to regulate a truck via the ECM, historically, is for fuel consumption regulation by beets. O/O’
    should they choose would lighten the foot. Anytime, however, that you have two masses of considerable weight
    travelling at different velocities, a degree of potential for collision increases. As does more interaction, an
    increase in user input and the margin of error. There are other readons aside ftom sporadic trends or marginal error
    to justifyva decrease in collision, too. Disc brakes forr example.
    Realistically, we are a people of commerce. Moving goods feeds people and with the mass of China moving
    forward and its enthusiasm to invest in rising economies and enderdeveloped countries can establish infrastructures
    which are the greatest detterent to war. So get with the picture Ontario. We should all be moving forward ad fast ad possible! Zing
    to market

Have your say:

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

*