You'd be on pretty solid ground if you argued that no single issue since deregulation has triggered as much controversy (or division) in the trucking community as speed limiters.

And opinion from the street really erupted when Ontario's Liberal government finally made good on a promise to the Ontario Trucking Association (OTA) and formally introduced legislation mandating speed limiters for all trucks working in the province, including those heading in from the U.S.

Bill 41, which would require all trucks operating in Ontario to activate speed limiters set at 105 km/h, most recently cleared second reading in Parliament and received approval in principle. It now faces a review by the Standing Committee on Justice Policy.
The OTA came up with the idea in 2005 and has been trying to export it across Canada ever since. Quebec -- which has a similar law ready, but has been waiting for another province to take the first leap -- will likely be next in line.

However, as Today's Trucking recently reported, Alberta has no intention of following suit anytime soon.

Standing with the OTA on the pro-side, you have an organized coalition that includes each provincial trucking association, insurance companies, highway enforcement, and environmental and safety groups.

Firmly against the proposal is the Owner-Operators Business Association of Canada (OBAC), which is backed by the Missouri-based American driver group OOIDA. Anecdotally, based on general Channel 19 chatter and the unprecedented number of letters that have flooded our email inboxes over the last three years, many drivers and independent owner-ops are uncomfortable with a universal speed limit that specifically targets trucks.

Wheelmen aren't the only critics. The Private Motor Truck Council of Canada (PMTC) has also spent the last few years urging the MTO to scrap speed limiters and instead step up on-road enforcement --obviously to little avail.

The argument for speed limiters is twofold: Safer highways and cleaner air.

"It just makes sense," says OTA boss David Bradley. "Not only is there a direct relationship between speed and the severity of crashes, but there is a direct payback in improved fuel efficiency from operating at lower speeds and that in turn reduces costs and GHG emissions."

Whether speed limiters can make good on those claims has been hotly debated. "They're just throwing a red herring out there," says OBAC Executive Director Joanne Ritchie.

"They're trying to sell us a bill of goods that this is going to make our roads safer and help save the environment all at the same time. And it lets them off the hook of actually having to do anything meaningful because the truth is that this will not change either of those things. It's useless legislation."

Is she right or is that just the kind of bluster that speed limiter proponents are waving off as the sort of renegade talk we sometimes hear from independents?

Taking a look at the available research on speeding variations and traffic patterns, it's certainly questionable whether runaway trucks are enough of a problem that merits a blanket regulation or that a 105 km/h-limit would have any net benefit on crash rates.

The Ontario Ministry of Transportation's (MTO) stats show that in 2003, for example, 20,600 class-A (Ontario's CDL) drivers received speeding tickets compared with some 587,000 for class G (passenger car) licence holders -- a 30:1 ratio.

Plus, some of those class-A drivers were driving their cars at the time. Of those incidents, we don't know how many truckers were charged on routes where the speed limit was less than 100 km/h, where speed limiters would not have any impact. It is also on these smaller, two-lane routes where the large majority of truck-related crashes occur.

While there's some merit to the theory that slowing down trucks could reduce the severity of truck-car accidents, other studies suggest that a greater differential in speed between vehicles actually increases accident risk.

A report by Steven L. Johnson, Ph.D., at the Mack-Blackwell Transportation Center at the University of Arkansas, for example, shows that lack of passing speed would result in "cluster congestion" and the concern of more rear-end collisions is very real.

And assuming speed limiters create more traffic congestion, then a portion of the purported emissions savings would be offset by increased stop-and-go traffic, says Barry Prentice, professor of supply chain management at the University of Manitoba.

David Bradley counters that there's no evidence speed limiters themselves will widen the gap to unsafe levels. "We have speed differentials now, so I don't see the situation getting any worse. In fact, I see things getting better over time as we see lane discipline improve."

As ambiguous as the safety arguments remain, the pro-environment claims are on more solid footing than they once were. Citing a yet-to-be released environmental benefits analysis by Transport Canada, MTO boasts that a universal truck speed of 105 km/h would save as much as 280,000 tones of GHG -- the equivalent of taking 2,700 tractor-trailers off the road each year. 

We were not yet able to see the latest study, but Transport Canada (TC) senior research analyst Andrew Spoerri confirmed that the methodology has drastically improved over a previous GHG discussion paper based in part on OTA's past fuel-saving estimates.

As Today's Trucking reported at the time, that older study calculated the provincial GHG-savings using a theoretical assumption that all class 8's travel at an average of 112 km/h. It then figured out the GHG savings by applying a 105 km/h-cap to the truck population.

This time, explains Spoerri, researchers collected actual speed distribution data from weigh-in-motion sites around the country. That data was averaged to produce a speed distribution profile for each province.

More importantly, the new study isolates highway systems above 100 km/h -- in other words, where speed limiters would be a factor. "It does not include traffic on any two or four-lane highways below 100 km/h whatsoever," explains Spoerri. "The [previous] paper used limited data… the methodology here is quite sound."

Clearly, there are some emission reductions to be gained from limiters. But can trucking make any real impact on its own?

Transportation as a whole may represent a large percentage of total GHG growth (stationary sources spew the most emissions, though), but after separating transport modes, breaking down sectors within road transport, and finally comparing heavy-duty diesels to all other types of on and off-road engines, it's shown that commercial trucks contribute only a sliver of Canada's total emissions.

Another matter is what Ottawa says about speed limiters' impact on traffic patterns, accidents, and congestion. A TC report on those factors -- along with examinations of privacy issues, trade barriers, tampering and enforcement -- is also expected later this spring.

There's been lots of speculation as to where Transport Canada will ultimately side. Some question why the MTO unveiled its legislation without waiting for completion of the TC studies, suggesting, perhaps, that the Ontario folks might be afraid of what their federal brethren conclude. Of course, the opposite is more likely true -- that the TC reports more or less support speed limiters and with that in mind, it wasn't so presumptuous for Ontario to come out of the gate first.

Either way, recent comments coming from Ottawa suggest the feds are at the very least intrigued by the concept, as Minister Lawrence Cannon called the latest findings on speed limiters "very encouraging." That doesn't sound like Cannon has any urge to sink the sailing speed limiter ship.

Most drivers and owner-ops we've spoken to don't oppose voluntary speed limiters. But, as trucker Paul McLellan of JP McLellan Transport in Nova Scotia says, many don't like the long arm of the law reaching into a competitive issue.

The solution to speeding truckers -- as much as it's even a problem -- is simply to step up enforcement, he says.

"Other jurisdictions use what is called a police force to keep the public in check," says McLellan, who runs into Ontario routinely.
"The same idiots that fly down Ontario's highways seem to transform into law-abiding citizens when they cross the border into states like Michigan and Ohio."

There are lots of drivers who approve of mandatory limiters as well. However, many don't care for how the legislation singles out trucks when other vehicles on the road pose larger risks.

OTA's Bradley says he would like to see the rule extended eventually to all vehicles.

"The political stakes are that much higher with cars. That's not to suggest they shouldn't do it, but to say 'let's wait until they do it for cars first' would mean we're delaying a positive measure for who knows how long. I would prefer to show some leadership, which may make it easier to move on cars down the road."

But as far as he's concerned, the time for debate on this issue is pretty much over. "It's going to happen. So, it's time to move on with life and start making it work. Undoubtedly, there's going to be issues that arise from time to time, but I don't think every time there's an elephant race we should be saying 'let's get rid of the law.' That's dumb."

Considering the emotion this issue has generated, some of the more vocal opponents may not go quietly. On the other hand, for most operators there's freight to find and bills to pay. So, like seatbelts and spot checks, speed limiters could eventually be­come just one more fixture of driving life.