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.
Comments (6)
It has become rather obvious to this reader that the speed limiter lobby has obtained an effective ambassador in Lou. Rather than the usual smoke and mirror approach that is consistent with the authoritarian style of management preferred by OTA/CTA leaders, Lou actually uses persuasive arguments with transparent and common-sense examples. Do you suppose if this approach had been used at the outset of this debate, we might be having a more civilized discussion?
Most truck drivers know first-hand how trucking politics work. When industry leaders talk about saving tax payers money, making suggestions how government and police forces should function and expressing their concern for safety and the environment within a climate of a markedly slowing economy, it can be easily interpreted as little more than code for a plan to hoodwink truck drivers. Add to that, a so-called public poll on the issue of speeding trucks that was little more than a forgone conclusion, it is simply icing on a perceived cake of deceitful intentions.
This is not to say I have been persuaded by Lou, to join the pro-speed limiter camp, only that I have noticed a more effective method of communication coming from his side of the debate.
In response to the Australian example, it would be interesting to add more pertinent detail such as vehicle weight limits, size and configuration limits, traffic patterns and road designs. These, among other factors, have a significant impact on whether speed limiter data can be logically extrapolated to the Canadian model. For example, I have heard that Australian trucks generally are longer, heavier and more powerful than ours, not to mention the people down there are crazier. I watched Crocodile Dundee and if he’s any indication, speed limiters are a good idea down under!
Posted by Jake Goertzen | June 17, 2008 6:26 PM
Posted on June 17, 2008 18:26
Over the last few years, I have been providing fuel consumption-reduction technologies to the owner-ops and fleets that are smart enough to give a damn about the bottom line.
On top of the list of do's that specifically the owner/ops can appreciate and apply is a self imposed reduction of speed to 96-100 kph. Most that are conscientious of budget see an enormous savings in fuel costs alone, never mind emission and safety concerns.
Money is usually what hits companies and individuals alike right between the eyes. If they are going to reduce fuel consumption between 6-18%, that should be the real motivator.
Following the same money trail thread, other than programming the ECM on most trucks for speed limiting, are some more rather prudent questions:
What company will be manufacturing these speed limiters, and what is their connection with the Ontario Government?
Posted by Bruno | June 26, 2008 7:50 PM
Posted on June 26, 2008 19:50
I AGREE WITH THE SPEED LIMITERS, WHICH MAKES ME ASK WHY WE WOULD ALLOW A "SWITCH" IN THE TRUCK FOR DRIVERS TO SWITCH THE LIMITER OFF WHEN THEY ARE OUT OF ONTARIO?
THE GTA IS THE 4TH OR 5TH LARGEST ECONOMIC CENTERS IN NORTH AMERICA. LETS CALL OURSELVES LEADERS, JUST AS ARNOLD HAS IN CALIFORNIA AND MAKE A STAND ON WHAT WE THINK IS RIGHT! IF WE ENTER CALIFORNIA WE MUST ADHERE TO ALL OF THEIR QUERKIE RULES AND GUESS WHAT! WE ALL DO IT!
WHEN YOU WANT TO DO BUSINESS IN ONTARIO YOU WILL FOLLOW OUR RULES.
Posted by Joseph Carusi | August 7, 2008 1:28 PM
Posted on August 7, 2008 13:28
I've driven a ''limited'' truck for 2 years back in the 90's. Challenger had quite a substantial insurance rebate because of this. It's never got me late or hard to push for deliveries. The secret is time management. I've often been passed by lighted ''Christmas trees'' doing 120 coming out of Windsor. Funny how they would pass me 2 or 3 more times before I got to Montreal. A police officer even jumped out from behind an overpass near Cornwall pointing his hair dryer at me. When he saw the colors on the tractor, I thought he was going to cry. In the long run it makes good business sense, specially in these times when fuel economy is crucial.
Posted by Mike L. | August 8, 2008 9:57 PM
Posted on August 8, 2008 21:57
What is the factor of driver fatigue? what happens with drivers that falls asleep behind the wheel with speed cruise control on?
Posted by Lilly van Wyk | October 17, 2008 7:38 PM
Posted on October 17, 2008 19:38
I have yet to see any discussion of time lost to drivers in U.S. as we get paid by the mile effectively reducing our income. That would be my only bitch.
Posted by Ted | September 10, 2009 7:44 PM
Posted on September 10, 2009 19:44