Speed Limiter Debate gains Momentum

Several years ago I worked with a lease/owner operator who got into an accident. He damaged a trailer. The damages totaled $2664.00 (so he was told, he never received an invoice). His deductible, clearly labeled on his signed contract, was $2500 yet the company removed the entire amount from his statement. He asked the controller why he charged the extra $164. The reply was “…we didn’t put it through insurance…”. The operator calmly and rationally tried to reason with the controller to get back his $164. It was no use! The company stood by their flawed logic and ignored their written contract. They had his money and nothing short of a law suite would change it. I had another operator who experienced the exact same situation and flawed logic but that time the damage was $5700 ($3200 above deductible).
Flawed logic is a form of deception, an action designed to distract someone from the glaring facts. This intellectual “slight of hand” is similar to strategic misdirection or “spin”. Call me old fashioned but to me a spin doctor is just a fancy word for professional liar. Imagine an occupation that pays people to lie and on a sliding scale, the better the liar the higher the pay.
There are many professions and industries that require “spin”. The most infamous work(ed) in the tobacco industry. They funded millions of dollars of “research” to “prove” that tobacco didn’t cause cancer. However, when the truth finally came out in court the industry coughed up BILLIONS.
The speed limiter debate is not without its own spin doctors. Let’s first look at the facts on how the law is administered. Let’s see where the liability or punishment is placed and what affect it has on the industry. On July 3rd I talked with a company driver who got a fine of $390.00 for driving a truck that is “non-compliant”. He asked his boss many times when he was going to “emasculate” it. The procrastinating employer kept saying “don’t worry” blah, blah, blah… He’ll pay the fine if there is one. Needless to say the driver had to keep working (wife-three kids-mortgage). Then he got checked. When he delivered the ticket, his boss still agreed to pay it (luckily) but he found out two things along the way: first the ticket goes on his personal abstract (apparently no demerits), second there was NO fine for the owner, it doesn’t even go on his CVOR scoring (MAYBE in the future but not now). It therefore appears the application of speed limiters is a simple punishment and tax on helpless drivers, not on non-compliant companies. The driver I mentioned had absolutely no physical or legal opportunity to comply. His only option was to refuse to work and therefore refuse to pay his mortgage and feed his wife and kids. In effect, this legislation places the ENFORCENENT of a law firstly on the pocketbook of the DRIVER yet ignoring the ones with authority.
Secondly let’s consider the evidence trail of how the speed limiter legislation was lobbied (spun). It was promoted as reducing both accidents and the industries carbon footprint (GHG). The argument originated from the OTA spin doctors who were successful in rejecting or ignoring all other evidence: University of Manitoba’s Barry E. Prentice’s excellent article June 2008, Transport Canada Studies released July 4th (not even three weeks after the vote), the notorious “public meeting” shame, and many others. The OTA’s spin is complete with its truth’s, half truths or maybe even full out lies. We shouldn’t be shocked at this. “Spinning” may well be a large part of David Bradley’s job description.
There are some truth’s mildly associated with the spin. The 400 series highways may well carry the majority of freight travel in Ontario. The 401 highway alone accommodates over 400,000 vehicles per day and is one of the busiest highways in the WORLD! One contributing factor of the volume is the speed the vehicles are allowed to travel. If the OPP actually enforced the speed limit the volume would decrease as congestion increased. Slowing down trucks and implying it doesn’t affect congestion should insult intelligent people. It is mathematically impossible!

The half truth about accidents is that speed kills. Of course speed kills, especially when its 80,000 lbs, but speed alone doesn’t kill, especially with heavy trucks. It’s the passing that creates the danger. Therefore, logically, the speed limiters actually INCREASE danger rather than decrease it (this logic was brought out by Mr. Prentice’s article but flat out ignored by the MTO). It was bad enough changing lanes going the same speed as the four wheelers, now try changing lanes going 15kmh slower than the 399,999 Mario Andretti’s. There is a direct correlation between the time of day traveling and the volume of urban fingers you get. But, if you are collecting fingers, there is more to consider than just time of day. The flat as a pancake 400 series thoroughfare does not represent the entire contour of Ontario. It has lower grades than Uncle Buck.
Traveling Hwy 17 has become a real crap shoot. Consider the hill near Roseport, which used to be climbed without gearing down (all-be-it approaching over speed limit). It must now be ascended in the basement (results slightly vary depending on gear configuration of course). A fully loaded tri-axle hitting the base of the hill at 112 KMH can stay in top gear right to the peak. However, just 7 KMH slower (combined with a delayed electronic kick in) has the driver pumping down gears till he’s crawling up at about 35 KMH (a perfect opportunity for collecting rural fingers). Since most drivers are paid by the mile the speed limiter reduces wages to about $8.64 per hour on Roseport hill (I’m afraid I don’t know the exact name). Isn’t that below minimum wage?
But alas, this is only late summer! What happens in our frigid ice and snow? Since drivers can’t chain up in Ontario how much do they get per hour when the inevitable spinout occurs? Can a driver start collecting EI immediately upon spinning or do they have to wait until the tow truck comes?
Assuming the MTO's primary concern is public safety is ignoring their track record, for example the awarding of LCV permits (Long Combination Vehicles). If safety was MTO’s primary concern, only trucking companies with excellent safety records would be awarded. But MTO awarded exclusive permits to companies who rated “satisfactory-unaudited” while hundreds of companies who rated “excellent” were flat out ignored. Logical people understand that MTO is all about political favoritism not safety. It’s the provincial Liberal version of the sponsorship scandal.
Safety was only one spin the MTO and OTA used to ram through bill 41. The other spin was the reduction of green house gases. If the OPP would enforce the speed limit the way all other provinces and states do, GHG savings would be generated from both trucks and four wheelers without any tradeoff with safety due to an increase in passing. Therefore any GHG savings from electronically limited trucks on the 400 series is a mute to duplicitous argument.
The real question is: what affect dose electronic limiters have on non 401 Series roads? Does GHG increase, decrease or stay the same?
Let’s look again at Hwy 17. According to my documented sources (all else being equal) it now takes about 45 liters MORE to travel from Thunder Bay to Ottawa than it did June 30 2009 and takes 15-25 minutes longer (in the summer). Trucks can no longer use momentum to carry them to the top of hills. Add to this cost: 4 wheelers trying to pass 35 MPH trucks in two way traffic, winter spinouts, or twisted drive shafts. All these situations costing MORE! It uses MORE fuel, emits MORE GHG and increases our dependence on fossil fuel. Sounds like a government solution to me! Anyone care for a cigarette?
Why would the MTO be interested in passing a law that has little to do with safety or GHG? The answer is simple, it’s because the OTA is interested! The speed limiters were birthed and written by the Ontario Trucking Association lobby group.

“…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…”

Lobby groups (same as unions) serve their members first. It’s not right or wrong it’s just how it’s done.
So why is the Ontario Trucking Association interested in increasing GHG, costs, risks and accidents? It surly isn’t to mandate their competition better fuel savings. I originally thought it was “…to legislate competition OUT of Ontario markets…”. Though this may have been on the minds of some OTA members I now believe the lion share of the reason is YOU! That’s right the Truck Driver!
Given the chance to drive 105KMH for 40 CPM verses 115KMH+ for 40 CPM, too many drivers were still choosing the 115KMH+. The OTA members, instead of possibly raising their pay rates, chose to restrict their competitions ability to attract YOU! That now means your speed and paycheck are limited (specifically in jurisdictions that have posted speed limits over 105 KMH). While other provinces and states are increasing speed limits Ontario mandates inter-jurisdictional limits. Just who do they think they are?
Let’s remember, individual OTA members hide behind the association, manipulating the industry human resource pools through legislation all the while “spinning” Bill 41 as a great environmental and safety initiative.
At the time of passing the MTO knew of the “spin” the OTA was making (otherwise they would have waited for Transport Canada’s studies and given a true forum to debate the issue). The reason they didn’t is because the Ontario Trucking Association politically owns Jim Bradley! Even though the liberal party was elected to represent the public, that assumption appears to be just another spin. As we can see, once elected, the office goes to the highest bidder. Vote out the liberals if you like, but that still doesn’t expose the bank rollers. The true puppeteers of this spin are the OTA members
It was the individual members of the OTA that voted to spin and misrepresent Bill 41 to the public. They hid behind an association but they are all equally complicit. Let’s remember, if they agree to spin in one area of business, to achieve their bottom line objectives, how safe do you feel working for them?
At the beginning of this article I wrote about a trucking company who “spun” $164 from an operators pay. Would you leave a company if they spun 164 of your dollars? Some would some wouldn’t. Would you leave a company if they spun 3200 of your dollars? Most would. The employer-employee relationship is based on trust. If they practice the art of “spinning” for $164 you can be assured they will enforce it for $3200. A smart driver will leave (or at least start looking) the minute they see the spin regardless of the amount or its impact on them personally.