MONTREAL, (Dec. 8, 2004) — More than 90 per cent of Canadians disagree with a proposal to extend a truck driver’s daily on-duty “working window” from 16 to 18 hours, with 88 per cent citing the possibility of “less safe roads” as the reason, according to an Ipsos-Reid survey conducted on behalf of Teamsters Canada.

In fact, the poll shows that 95 per cent of Canadians believe that truck drivers should not be made to work more than 14 hours per day. Specifically, 17 per cent indicated 14 hours is acceptable, 48 per cent prefer 10 hours, and 30 per cent say 8 hours or less.

Quebecers are most likely to think the maximum should be 8 hours or less, and residents of Saskatchewan/Manitoba are most likely to think the maximum should be 10 hours, according the survey.

The telephone survey was conducted by Ipsos-Reid for Teamsters Canada between November 23 and 25, 2004. It was conducted with 1,000 respondents and has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent.

When asked why they disagree or agree, two-thirds (65%) of those who disagree volunteered that it is because of safety issues/higher danger levels on the road. Other reasons include: too long/too many hours to be on the road (31%); fatigue/drivers become too tired (26%); and not good for the driver’s health/too stressful (5%).

Of the 10 per cent of total respondents that agreed with the plan, 25 per cent thought the driver should decide how long to drive each day; 14 per cent said to earn a living/they need the money; 11 per cent said they’re not driving all the time/they can take breaks. Other reasons cited were: deliveries have to be made on time; more profitable for truck drivers/transport businesses; and good for the economy.

“The results are clear,” said Robert Bouvier, Teamsters Canada president, in a press release. “Canadians are not stupid: they are well aware that their safety-as well as truckers’ safety-is jeopardized each and every time they cross paths with a truck driver who has been on the road for close to 18 hours. The government’s proposal makes no sense whatsoever.”

However, the proposal does not suggest keeping “drivers on the road for close to 18 hours.” Proponents of the plan stress it would not extend a driver’s time behind the wheel, but add an extra two hours from 16 (under the current hours-of-service proposal expected next year) to 18 hours to make up for lost driving time because of delays at shipping docks.

Some trucking officials suggest results of such surveys regarding citizens’ perceptions of the industry are skewed because the average person doesn’t properly appreciate all the rules and regulations that are involved in the industry.

While the survey clearly refers to “on-duty” time and not solely driving time, it does not specifically differentiate to respondents that part of a workday does not involve driving time — something that many respondents who cited “too long to be on the road” as reasons for not supporting the plan are not likely to assume on their own, critics suggest.

Ironically, the proposal, which is now before the government, has a very difficult chance of being passed. As reported exclusively in a TodaysTrucking.com story last week, an expert scientific review panel shot down the 18-hour working window proposal in a study commissioned by Transport Canada.

The report — to be submitted to the Standing Committee on Compliance and Regulatory Affairs of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators — states that “proactive measures to address operational problems should be proposed which safeguard the health and safety of drivers and the public, rather than long split shifts (window).”

It also states that in regards to the 18-hour split shift option: The (proposal) “is not consistent with the 24-hour day, which was a core, scientifically supported recommendation of both the Canadian and U.S. expert panels of 1998.” (for more details go to www.todaystrucking.com/displayarticle.cfm?ID=3594).

Around the same time, the Canadian Trucking Alliance — the chief proponent of the two-hour extension — abandoned its pursuit of the plan. It cited lack of widespread industry support as its main reason, but also hinted that the issue “not being incorrectly reported by some in the media” also played a part.