Dear Editor:

I can not help but add my comments about the legislation of speed limiters. I consider myself to be relatively green as a driver.

I have driven long-haul since 2000. In that short time I have travelled Canada from coast to coast and all of the mainland US, with the exception of Alaska.

All the trucks I have driven were limited to 64 mph.

In my opinion, the difference between 100 km/h and 115 km/h is a few less stops at Timmy’s.

It is the story of the tortoise and the hare. Many times I have left the yard, headed west on the 401 to Toronto and have been passed two or three times by the same truck. In my travels I have found that driving a 64 mph truck in a state or province that has a higher speed limit to be no problem.

As a last thought I would like to comment on an article in your August issue written by Joanne Ritchie. In her article she quotes a study made by the University of Waterloo.

She quotes the study as stating that trucks with speed limiters would cause a “reduction in safety.”

The question that comes to my mind is this: If the speed limit on the QEW is 100 km/h what leap of logic brings someone to the conclusion that trucks slowed by limiters to 105 km/h (5 km/h above the speed limit) could cause a “reduction in safety.”

A reduction in safety is not caused by those doing the speed limit.

A reduction in safety is caused by those who drive a phone booth for a vehicle, who do not know how to change lanes or merge, those who do not know what turn signals are and lastly those who think the fast lane belongs to them and speed limits are for everyone else.

The truth of the matter is this: By forcing the O/O to slow down, their productivity will be affected. And therefore their income. Period. Arguments about pros and cons of safety and costs are just excuses.

Brian Reed

Mallorytown, Ont. Via e-mail