The Ontario Trucking Association has taken its case for mandatory speed limiters before the mainstream media.

The OTA spent two days last week touting the benefits of capping the speed of all trucks at 105 km, including reduced frequency and severity of car/truck collisions, less tailgating and improper lane changing by trucks, reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fuel savings, reduced wear and tear on equipment, and less stress on drivers.

OTA says its plan makes sure all
truckers obey speed laws

OTA said last week that all Canadian carrier associations, save Quebec, have thrown their support behind the plan. The carrier group’s plan is to get the green light from Canadian governments before floating the idea of a North American policy before the American trucking Associations. ATA President Bill Graves has said in the past he would sit down with the OTA to discuss the proposal.

Meanwhile, two owner-operator associations have filed comments with Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation (MTO) opposing the plan and are waiting for word on how the minister will react to the OTA’s idea. In their submission, the Owner-Operator’s Business Association of Canada (OBAC), and the American group, Owner-Operator and Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), challenged the OTA proposal saying, among other things, that governed trucks may actually increase the risk (of collision) to motorists by creating dangerous speed differentials.

Transport Minister Harinder Takhar is expected to be briefed later this month.

Even with the federal election looming, the mainstream media finally seemed to take an interest in the issue. A story appeared on the front page of the Toronto Star on January 16. Numerous radio stations, including the CBC, held call-in talk shows on the topic. CTV news had film and interviews. OBAC’s executive director, Joanne Ritchie, and OTA president, David Bradley, appeared separately on TV and radio reports, and were both quoted in several stories.

The coverage, by and large, seemed to treat both arguments equally. The Star, however, published an editorial that refused to support the plan. While it acknowledged some possible merits of speed limiters, the newspaper concluded that speed of trucks could be more efficiently controlled with stepped-up enforcement.

That is also what the owner-op groups and hundreds of individual truckers have been arguing. OBAC and OOIDA also oppose the plan on the grounds that research on traffic dynamics shows differential speeds would actually increase the likelihood of car/truck collisions.

Opponents claim speed limiters would
create walls of trucks on the highway

On its website, OTA says “Evidence from the U.S. indicates that in states where there is a differential speed limit there are about 36 percent fewer truck-to-car rear-end collisions and 29 percent fewer side swipe collisions (as compared to states where there is a uniform speed limit). Evidence also suggests that rear-end collisions appear more prevalent (39% of all collisions involving trucks) where the truck was speeding, than when cars were speeding (34% of collisions involving cars).”

In their submissions, OBAC and OOIDA countered with references from studies released in recent years by Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada, the University of Arkansas, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) showing that differential vehicle speeds on highways would increase the risk of incidents while offering no significant reduction in the overall severity of highway accidents between cars and trucks.

While slowing trucks down may, as OTA suggests, reduce the number of truck-into-car incidents, it could increase the number of incidents where faster-moving cars strike trucks from the rear. Statistics produced by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2004 show that trucks are struck from the rear 3.2 times more often than other vehicles.

“The reality, according to a study released in November 2005 by the University of Arkansas, is that the public perception of the risk of being rear-ended by a truck is just that: perception,” Ritchie says. “That study shows that the relative frequency of trucks passing cars is very low, which is counter to the publics’ perception that trucks frequently pass cars.”

In its report, OBAC stated that there are more appropriate ways for government to serve the public good in its dealings with the trucking industry. Among OBAC’s and OOIDA’s recommendations: maintaining a high level of speed enforcement on roads and highways; stepped-up public education on how to share the road with trucks; and mandatory retesting of all drivers with questionable driving records. As well, the government could take positive steps toward reducing GHG emissions by allowing trucks to use smoother flowing high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes to reduce gear shifting by trucks and offering financial and tax incentives to early adopters of EPA 2007 low-emissions engines.

If MTO decides to proceed, a legislative amendment would be required to mandate speed-limiters, an MTO spokesperson told Today’s Trucking. “Depending on MTO’s assessment of the proposal, a legislative and regulatory amendment may be required,” he said.