It has become rather obvious to this reader that the speed limiter lobby has obtained an effective ambassador in Lou Smyrlis. Rather than the usual smoke and mirror approach that is consistent with the authoritarian style of management preferred by OTA/CTA leaders, Lou actually uses persuasive arguments with transparent and common-sense examples. Do you suppose if this approach had been used at the outset of this debate, we might be having a more civilized discussion?

Most truck drivers know first-hand how trucking politics work. When industry leaders talk about saving taxpayers money, making suggestions how government and police forces should function, and expressing their concern for safety and the environment within a climate of a markedly slowing economy, it can be easily interpreted as little more than code for a plan to hoodwink truck drivers. Add to that a so-called public poll on the issue of speeding trucks that was little more than a forgone conclusion; it is simply icing on a perceived cake of deceitful intentions.

This is not to say I have been persuaded by Lou to join the pro-speed limiter camp, only that I have noticed a more effective method of communication coming from his side of the debate.

In response to the Australian example, it would be interesting to add more pertinent detail such as vehicle weight limits, size and configuration limits, traffic patterns and road designs. These, among other factors, have a significant impact on whether speed limiter data can be logically extrapolated to the Canadian model. For example, I have heard that Australian trucks generally are longer, heavier and more powerful than ours, not to mention the people down there are crazier. I watched Crocodile Dundee and if he’s any indication, speed limiters are a good idea down under!

Jake Goertzen