James and I really do get along – but not when it comes to the issue of speed limiters. If you’ve been following our blogs over the past while you know James doesn’t think they’re such a good idea while I think they are.

Speed limiters are now the law in Ontario and James takes one last shot, writing that the way the law came to be has left him “with a sour taste.” He feels the one-day public hearing was a farce, with practically no advanced notice provided to stakeholders. “It was clear from the get-go that this government was simply going through the motions, with no real intent of making any changes to the proposed legislation,” he writes in his blog and believes the Ontario government got too chummy with the Ontario Trucking Association during the process.

I think we’re making mountains out of mole hills.

Much has been made about the shortness of the public hearings. But let’s put this in perspective. Speed limiters were not an issue that just suddenly surfaced. It has been debated for two and a half years now. Both the Ontario Trucking Association and those opposed to speed limiter legislation, namely OOIDA and OBAC, have had plenty of time to make their opinions known to legislators. Also during this time the trade media have provided extensive coverage of the issue, again providing plenty of opportunity for both sides to present their views. (And I bet if we were to take a count of all the articles written in all the trade media about speed limiters we would find the majority voiced the concerns of those opposed).

Any politician wanting to make an informed decision on how to vote had no shortage of material to read and no shortage of time to make up his or her mind. What would longer public hearings have provided? What evidence would have been presented that had not already been documented over the past two and a half years?

I can’t argue that there should not have been more advanced notice provided about the hearings. But again let’s put this in perspective. Each presenter at the public hearings were asked to speak for just 10 minutes. Now to someone not used to speaking in public that may seem a daunting task, particularly when they’ve been given little advanced notice. But for professional lobbyists, such as OTA, OOIDA and OBAC, being asked to speak for 10 minutes on an issue they’ve known intimately and written extensively for more than two years is not exactly a tough assignment.

And what about the belief that the OTA basically wrote the speed limiter law for the government? For the last time, let’s place things in perspective. Motor carriers, through the OTA, approached the government and asked to be legislated. They actually asked the government to make life tougher for them by giving them one more regulation to follow. So why shouldn’t they have attempted to draft the legislation in a fashion they found to be workable? The OTA certainly made no secret of what it wanted with the legislation and anyone opposed to it had plenty of time to voice their concerns.

Let’s drop the conspiracy theories and stop making mountains out of mole hills. Speed limiters became law in Ontario because when legislators were presented with both sides of the issue over the course of more than two years, they found the pro side made the most sense. It’s as simple as that.

Permalink | Comments (16)

Well, it’s finally happened. After two and a half years of dogged determination, the Ontario Trucking Association (OTA) has ushered its speed limiter policy through to fruition. It went through the legislative process unamended and is pretty much on the books exactly as originally drafted up by OTA.

Now, what? Everyone has their own opinions on what this law will mean to truckers in Ontario. Some say safer roads and cleaner air. Others say highway carnage and a mass exodus of drivers from the industry. I stand somewhere in the middle, and have already made my thoughts known. In a nutshell, I think the proposed benefits are greatly overstated and yet I don’t subscribe to the doomsday theories that are out there and that I hear about every day.

In the end, professional drivers are going to have to accept and adapt – that’s all there is to it. It’s not going to be the end of the world. Having said that, the way this law came to be, has left me with a sour taste. The one-day public hearing was a farce, with practically no advanced notice provide to stakeholders. It was clear from the get-go that this government was simply going through the motions, with no real intent of making any changes to the proposed legislation.

Conservative MPP Frank Klees, who I think would agree with me on that point, made the following comments in the Legislature during final debate: “I received an e-mail that, quite frankly, concerned me as a member of this Legislature and as a former minister...I'd like to you listen to this, Speaker, because you will be interested, as will any other member of this Legislature, to know the arrogance with which some stakeholders approach this place: ‘As for the amendments, we have none, and in fact I would go further and say that we would be very strongly opposed to any amendment. This is our bill. Every period, every comma, every semicolon was put there by us, and we would be very, very unhappy were it to be amended in any way’."

I find it disturbing that any lobby group – any organization – was able to write its own legislation and is chummy enough with our government that they could seemingly will it through the legislative process untouched. I find that startling.

But to its credit, the OTA (I should point out Klees did not say which stakeholder sent him the aforementioned e-mail) was bent on making this happen, and they saw it through right til the end. They pushed for this with a united voice that showed no signs of cracking – at least publicly - at any time over the last two and a half years. They got dozens of strong-headed fleet managers to agree on an issue (that alone is amazing) and showed no chinks in their armour at any time in their pursuit of making this law. But in the process, what has come to the surface is the great divide that exists between the carrier community and its drivers. The ongoing debate on this blog and the flood of e-mails and phone calls we’ve received here at Truck News attest to that. Wounds have been created, which may take some time to heal.

Time will tell how this all shakes out.

And on that note, I’m off for a couple weeks. I’m getting married in the Dominican Republic and will be back in early July.

Permalink | Comments (4)

Neil Young may not be rockin’ the free world as hard as he once did, but he’s still trying to make a difference. However the legendary rocker is using technology rather than music to change the world this time around.

He has teamed up with some bright young scientists to convert his Lincoln Continental into a vehicle that can run on alternative engine sources (likely electricity), ideally getting 100 miles to the gallon (if any fuel is required at all - details are still sketchy).

“Our goal is to inspire a generation by creating a clean automobile propulsion technology that serves the needs of the 21st Century and delivers performance that is a reflection of the driver's spirit,” reads the Web site, www.lincvolt.com. “By creating this new power technology we hope to reduce the demand for petro-fuels enough to eliminate the need for war over energy supplies, thereby enhancing the security of the USA and other nations throughout the world.”

The car has been entered into The Automotive X Prize, which will pit various technologies against each other in 2009 and 2010 during races across the US. Hopefully, the competition will result in various solutions which produce no emissions, use little – if any – fuel and have the potential to be mass-marketed. In a recent blog I wrote that the current fuel crisis will also produce opportunities - opportunities for bright young minds to develop solutions that will lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. This effort, and the Automotive X Prize in general, is a great step towards that goal.

Hopefully, technologies that are developed can be transferred to the trucking industry as well. While the current cost of diesel has this industry against the ropes and on wobbly legs, if the current crisis is the catalyst that spawns the creation of new alternatives to foreign oil, this may well be one of the greatest blessings in disguise we could have asked for.

Permalink | Comments (0)

Since coming out in favor of speed limiters I’ve been overwhelmed by calls and e-mails from drivers and owner/operators with dire warnings about what “could” or “would” happen should such legislation be passed in Ontario. I thought I would respond by looking at what “did” happen. After all, although the debate about speed limiters is a hot one in Canada, it’s old news in other parts of the world. And the experiences in those countries has much to show us, for those willing to keep an open mind anyway.

Australia is the first country I want to consider. Speed limiters have been the law for both trucks and buses there since 1990 and they’re set at 100 km/h.

Those opposed to speed limiters in Ontario say the speed differential between heavy trucks and cars they force will cause accidents. Have the Aussies, after almost 20 years of speed limiters found that to be true? Here’s what Chris Brooks, senior adviser, road safety, Australian Transport Safety Bureau, told us:

“There is no good evidence that a 10 km/h differential between light vehicle and truck speed limits creates a safety problem. If there is any such problem at all, it is small compared to the safety benefits of running trucks at 100 km/h rather than 110 km/h.”

Just as interesting was what Australia’s National Road Transport Commission found when it looked into what motivates drivers to speed. It found that speed choice for truck drivers is largely depended on the prevailing weather, traffic density, police presence and road conditions. While truck drivers are concerned about speed limit differentials between heavy vehicles and the prevailing speeds of other traffic, they consciously trade off speed and risks of prosecution and crashing; regarding fines as a cost of doing business.

In other words, in the real world, the benefits of getting home early or delivering on time too often trump the risks associated with driving too fast.

Speed limiters place everyone on a level playing field and shippers and carriers can’t push drivers to drive too fast to meet a schedule.’

Another concern for the anti-speed limiting lobby is that speed limiting trucks will lead to more overtaking, and hence more serious crashes, as motorists get fed up with being stuck behind lumbering behemoths, particularly on country and regional roads. I find that argument particularly hard to grasp considering the speed limit on country roads is 80 km/h and 90 or 100 km/h on regional roads, both considerably below the proposed speed limiter setting of 105 km/h.

But let’s look at the Australian experience. Have almost two decades of speed limiters (set at 100 km/h) led to carnage in the Outback? Again, we asked Chris Brooks, senior adviser, road safety, Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Here’s what he told us:

“In fact, overtaking-related crashes on rural roads are surprisingly uncommon…It may be that on two-lane roads with a general speed limit of 110 km/h, the presence of speed-limited trucks tends to constrain light vehicle speeds. If so, there may well be a substantial net safety benefit that would be lost if trucks were permitted to travel faster.”

In other words, rather than causing more accidents, speed limited trucks are causing other traffic to slow down and thus reducing the likelihood of accidents.

There are still some in Australia who don’t want speed limiters, of course. But I’ve specifically chosen to use Brooks’ comments because he was not speaking for the Australian Trucking Association, which like the Ontario Trucking Association here, supported speed limiters. He is speaking for the government, which after almost 20 years of speed limiters would be under pressure to change the legislation if there was strong evidence it was leading to more accidents.

The fact there is ongoing support for speed limiters speaks for itself.

In my next blog, I’ll look at the impact of speed limiter legislation in Europe.

Permalink | Comments (10)

Truckers beware! We have learned of a secret plot by nefarious Communists (or perhaps it’s dastardly Nazis) to take over the Ontario Legislature.

The plot, our undercover sources tell us, involves setting up the Ontario transport minister as Supreme Leader and outsourcing the running of the transport ministry to the province’s largest trucking association.

The first course of action by the new Communist leadership would be to mandate speed limiters. This would be the first step towards total domination of everything independent truckers hold dear.

The Communists of course know that installing speed limiters will destroy the Ontario economy. This is exactly what they want to happen because they plan to use the destroyed economy as an excuse to invade neighboring Quebec and Manitoba. The plan also calls on using the fleets of the province’s largest carriers, who were already familiar with speed limiters, to transport war materiel to the front, providing safe transportation and a new way to deal with slumping freight volumes all in one shot. (Commies can be clever, eh?)

Our sources also tell us that secret US operatives have caught wind of the plot and the plan to install speed limiters and are planning to contest it under international law.

However, the US will not be sending its customary international trade diplomats. Instead, the mission will be handled by representatives from OOIDA, due to their professed knowledge and expertise in such matters.

THERE! Isn’t that just what you wanted to hear?

With the exception of a few of my own embellishments, that’s the jist of many of the e-mails and phone calls I’ve been receiving of late about mandating speed limiters.

Come on folks, suggesting that Ontario is about to turn into a Communist society just because legislators are seriously considering mandating speed limiters is a tad over the top, ain’t it?

There are plenty of real issues to debate regarding speed limiters. Let’s not destroy the debate with ludicrous conspiracy theories.

Permalink | Comments (6)

This is the continuation of my blog report from the public hearings on speed limiters, held at Queen’s Park June 5.
We pick it up with the folks from OOIDA.

10:20 a.m. – Terry Button, OOIDA. First, let me say OOIDA should be commended for coming up to Canada to present their members’ position. This is a powerful lobby group with 162,000 members. However, both presenters (I’ll get to that in a sec) had trouble making their presentation in the 10 minutes allotted, which caused clarity to suffer a bit and left no time for questions. Written submissions could be equally effective after the hearing. I got the sense that the MPPs on the committee were gaining the most useful information during the Q&A sessions that followed each presentation. Nevertheless, both OOIDA presenters made their position very obvious. Button, who runs trucks from New York State into Ontario, saved his strongest comments for the end: “We believe your good intentions are being taken advantage of,” he told the committee. “If you pass this, we will not sit idly by.” He said he has already discussed the issue with his local representatives and he’s convinced there are NAFTA trade implications. He saved the best for last, but again in my opinion it would have been more effective if there was time for follow-up questions.

10:30 a.m. – Tom Weakley, director of operations, OOIDA Foundation. Foundation? Clever way to get two speakers from the same organization onto the docket! Well, they did travel all the way up from the states – I think they deserved more than 10 minutes. Again, Weakley just had too much ground to cover in just 10 minutes and there was no time for follow-up questions. But he presented some great numbers I hadn’t heard before. Like this: It’ll take an extra five to seven minutes to check the speed limiter during every MTO inspection. That could total 43,000 hours of additional delays each year. Yikes. While the OOIDA reps may have been a bit rushed, they did leave the committee with some useful information sheets.

RECESS TIME! Just when things are getting good. A four-hour recess – not enough time to get back to work and accomplish anything, but enough time to take up my entire day. Oh well, I catch part of a matinee Jays game on TV.

2:30 p.m. – Dr. Barry Prentice, University of Manitoba, transportation guru. Prentice warned against speed limiters for a couple of reasons. For one, he said the safety enhancements will not exist because of the creation of wider speed differentials. He also questioned the environmental savings, since cars would be forced to speed up and slow down more frequently to avoid truck traffic, negating any greenhouse gas emission savings from trucks. He cited some stats that contradicted earlier stats from OTA members. He also cited research which the committee seems eager to take a closer look at. It seemed like Prentice, with his impressive accolades and transportation knowledge, gave the committee some things to think about.

2:40 p.m. – Dorothy Sanderson, professional driver. Kudos to Dorothy, the only trucker who ventured down to Queen’s Park to have her say. She argued vehemently against Bill 41. It was refreshing to see a trucker take to the mic. She even garnered an applause from the NDP members – albeit, it was after slamming Transport Minister Jim Bradley.

2:50 p.m. – Ray Gompf, Canadian Owner/Operators Co-op. The premise of his speech was that engines don’t necessarily emit less when they’re running slower. Lower RPMs mean an engine has to work harder, producing more emissions. He said owner/ops can’t afford to re-spec’ their trucks and said at the very least, existing trucks should be grandfathered.

3:00 p.m. – Jeff Bryan, Jeff Bryan Transport. Bryan held up well on the hot seat during questioning. He raises a good point: If Bill 41’s going to hurt the pocketbooks of fleets and/or owner/operators, why is it that the loudest proponents of the bill, which already govern their trucks, are amongst the most successful and safest fleets? “The policy will improve the image of our industry and it will improve safety on our roads.”

3:10 p.m. – Joanne Ritchie, OBAC. This is where things took a turn for the peculiar. Nowhere to be seen, Joanne called in on her cell phone from the 10 Acre Truck Stop in Belleville. She bemoaned the short notice provided for the hearing and said she’d been up all night preparing her presentation. On her drive in from Ottawa, fatigue caught up with her and she had to pull over to rest. Now, I don’t know if it was a clever ploy aimed at hammering home the point that the notice given for the hearing was inadequate? (The way they rushed this hearing really was a joke – honestly, how many truckers could be expected to attend?) Regardless, her call – and her inability to make the hearing - made an impression. The committee agreed that if she could not make it in, then it stood to reason that most truckers would also have difficulty appearing. They agreed, almost certainly as a result of this call, to extend the deadline for written comments to June 10. They also agreed to accept Ritchie’s presentation at a later time.

And on that odd note, it was a wrap. The MPPs agonized over the fact they had been presented with two vastly different opinions on the subject over the course of the day. They decided to take more time to solicit feedback from stakeholders. For those of you who sent in faxes and e-mails, I can confirm they were distributed to the committee members. You can keep doing so til June 10. See the Headline News item for details. It may make a difference, regardless of where you stand on the issue. The Opposition MPPs in particular seem willing to explore this issue in more detail before proceeding. That’s our democracy in action and it was fun to watch.

Permalink | Comments (8)

Just back from the public hearings on Bill 41 at Queen’s Park. It was a fascinating look at the democratic process in motion and I’m pleased to have been there to witness it. I’m surprised it didn’t attract more attention from the media. The following is a short wrap on the events that unfolded, on a speaker-by-speaker basis. Each speaker was given 10 minutes for their presentation and questions. Ten minutes is hardly enough time to scratch the surface of such a complex issue, but at least everyone who attended or called in was treated the same. Couldn’t make it? Don’t worry, here’s a rundown as I saw it:

9:10 a.m. – Brian Taylor, president of Liberty Linehaul. Not surprisingly, Brian was in favour of the legislation. He had the respect of the committee, having driven some million miles himself. “I feel embarrassed it took fuel prices to motivate this,” he said. He also noted while there’s been driver resistance within his own fleet, owner/operators generally end up thanking him several months later when they see how much less fuel they burn at 105 km/h. Almost immediately, MPP Frank Klees establishes himself as the agitator, questioning Taylor on the need to speed up to avoid collisions in some instances. “I don’t think driving the vehicle faster helps you avoid accidents,” Taylor replied.

9:20 a.m. – Brian Patterson, Ontario Safety League. We all know that the OSL has been behind this initiative since the OTA first announced its policy nearly three years ago. Patterson said Bill 41 is “excellent legislation for this province – it will save lives.” He urged the committee to consider increasing the fine for non-compliance above the currently proposed $250. He added motor coaches should also have to comply with the law, an idea that was warmly received by MPPs on the committee.

9:30 a.m. – Robert Clarke, president, Truck Manufacturers Association. They talked briefly about some of the technical issues and the ability to make the system tamper-resistant. Some time was spent discussing the ability of old trucks to comply, which is a moot point since the law won’t cover trucks built before the mid-90s when speed limiters became standard.

9:40 a.m. – Robert Tremblay, Insurance Bureau of Canada. Naturally, he was all for Bill 41. When asked if it would result in reduced insurance premiums for carriers – he was predictably non-committal, noting the bureau does not get involved in the business practices of its members, the actual insurers.

9:50 a.m. – Dave Osiecki, vice-president safety, security and operations with the American Trucking Associations (and friends). Osiecki commended the Ontario government for showing leadership and explained the differences between ATA’s speed limiter policy and the OTA’s. 1) ATA wants the law to apply to new trucks only while the Ontario law would affect all trucks. 2) ATA wants the speed limiter set by the OEM, not technicians or dealers. And 3) ATA wants its speed limiters hard-coded so they cannot be increased by the truck owner. Osiecki said he hopes one day the US will adopt its own speed limiter law and that it can be harmonized with Ontario’s.

10 a.m. – David Bradley, president, Ontario Trucking Association. I’ve seen Bradley speak countless times, but never have I seen him show so much passion. He must smell the finish line by now. He made a great case for speed limiters and distributed a slick information kit. They’re not messing around. At this point in the proceedings, it seems the momentum is all on the side of the speed limiter proponents.

10:10 a.m. – Doug Switzer, vice-president, Canadian Trucking Alliance and Debbie Virgoe, widow of heroic trucker David Virgoe who died while reckless drivers forced him to make an evasive maneuver last year. Switzer backed the OTA position and turned the table over to Debbie. She once told me that she didn’t believe in the OTA’s position on speed limiters, but she’s entitled to change her mind. She has made highway safety her mission in life since the death of her husband and it would seem natural that she would want the speeds of all vehicles controlled.

Things heat up as OOIDA takes to the microphone. See part 2 of this blog for the details.

Permalink | Comments (0)

There have been many compelling arguments made both for and against Ontario’s controversial legislation that, if passed, would mechanically limit truck speeds to 105 km/h. We’ve heard them all here at Truck News. Some of them have been absurd (that the Ontario government are communists and that truckers will take up arms before allowing their trucks to be governed). Others make a lot of sense – like this one:

Doug Monahan is one of those owner/operators who meticulously tracks his fuel mileage. He spec’d his latest truck with fuel economy in mind. It has a small, 450-hp Mercedes-Benz engine which allows him to average 7.73 mpg even without an aerodynamic tractor. He gets 8.7 mpg on flat ground and about 7.3 mpg through the hills.

Doug hauls into the US where he encounters a lot of these hills, especially through Virginia. While he averages 95 km/h here in Canada, he says he needs the extra juice to get over the hills without burning up too much fuel in the process. He generally approaches the bottom of the hill at 75 mph, which allows him to increase his fuel mileage by half a mile per gallon when all is tallied on the other side, he claims. He says he needs to keep the smaller engine wound up to maximize his fuel mileage in the hills. He has experimented by running his usual 95 km/h through the hills in the US and he says he saw his fuel economy suffer significantly.

“That’s money right out of my pocket,” he insists.

He claims that his smaller engine will put out more greenhouse gases if he’s limited to 105 even through the hills in the US. That's because it will have to work so much harder to get up the hill if he can't build up speed at the bottom. Now, Monahan is a reasonable guy and he knows that slowing down saves fuel. That’s why he spec’d a smaller engine. However, he said his fuel savings will lost if he has to run at 105 through the hills. And he’s not happy about it. He feels the proposed law should apply only to new trucks, since he would have spec’d his truck differently had he known about the proposed law at the time.

He makes a good point. When new regulations are hoisted upon the automotive industry, existing vehicles are usually grandfathered. He’d like to see the Ontario government follow that lead in this case as well.

“Then the owner/operators and the company know what they’re getting into and they can order the truck accordingly,” he points out.

George Desjardins, an owner/operator with 30 years experience, agrees that his fuel economy will suffer in the hills if his truck is governed at 105.

“In the perfect world these pro-speed limiters live in, there mustn’t be any hills,” he wrote to Truck News. “The world I live in there are, and when you are loaded with a gross weight of 130,000 lbs, you must drop gears to climb hills, even little ones. This causes the engine to rev up even though the truck is losing speed. If you can’t increase your speed a little prior to the hill, you will be in a lower gear and running with a higher RPM that much longer, thus spewing greenhouse gases into the air that much longer.”

He adds: “Being that at the present time I can speed up prior to climbing a hill, I can in a lot of cases stay in high gear and not contribute to this problem as much.”

Desjardins spent extra money on a big engine and now feels this legislation will, in his words, “castrate it.”

It’s not easy to determine to what extent fuel mileage may be compromised in hilly regions with the proposed law, if at all. But we mustn’t underestimate the implications the proposed speed limiter law will have on how fleets and owner/ops spec’ their equipment. Perhaps the law would be more readily received if current trucks were exempted from the rule?

Permalink | Comments (3)