It’s been a while since flying truck tires have been in the news. So when I heard all the Toronto radio stations dissecting section 84.1(1) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act as I was coming to work one morning, I knew something bad had happened and that this industry’s image was about to take another beating.

Section 84.1 (1) imposes a fine of $50,000 while denying carriers a defence of due diligence: if you lose a wheel, you’re guilty. This time however, it wasn’t a truck wheel but a 10-kilogram shoe from the base of a trailer’s landing gear. The piece came off and bounced on the road before flying, at an estimated 200 km/h, through the windshield of Fernando Martins’s car. Tragically, Martins was killed instantly.

While Martins’s family grieved in the days after, the pack-like media in this city went on the hunt for just about any story – short of a cigarette tossed out a driver’s window – involving items coming off of trucks. At the same time, calls to extend the “wheel off” provision to include all truck parts intensified, and not just from reporters. Camera-friendly Ontario Provincial Police Sgt. Cam Woolley said the law should encompass more than wheels because “small metal parts can kill just as easily as huge tires.”

Some powerful unions, including those of some government workers whose duties have been contracted out over the last decade, also demanded the law cover more than just wheels.

Clearly, Ontario’s Liberal government wanted to let this storm pass. When asked whether the Ministry would pursue the suggestion to expand the provision, an Ontario Ministry of Transportation spokesperson told me only that the Minister has to “look at the feasibility of everything in front of him.”

Just because the clatter has since died down doesn’t mean the possibility is buried. The attention of the media, lobby groups, and the public has been piqued. All it would take is a similar incident to get the ball rolling.

Sound impossible? Unconstitutional?

You bet. But in 1995 no one would have predicted that two fatal wheel-off incidents just weeks apart would have evolved into Section 84.1. If I’ve learned anything as a journalist, it’s to never underestimate the influence of the collective media–and a handful of advocate judges who want to make an example of someone on any given day.

Of course broadening the type of equipment covered by this law would be ridiculous. If anything, the focus should be on other road users. As reader Shawn Armstrong asks on page 10 of this issue, why are trucks singled out when boat or pup trailers are among the most decrepit pieces of equipment on the road?

Moreover, if Ontario’s absolute liability legislation is amended, what parts beyond wheels and landing gear are we talking about here? Flying mud flaps?
The problem with section 84.1 is not so much the hefty fine, but the fact that it strips away a truck owner’s right to defend himself, which is in my opinion unconstitutional. Each case should be decided on its own merits, and unfortunately section 84.1 blurs those details without any rationale. Somehow, the lawmakers have gotten away with it.

This summer, make sure your drivers are diligent on their circle checks, and pay attention to even new hardware you assume got a pass from the supplier. Don’t let anyone make an example out of you.