I had promised to my listeners, before I got removed from the Sunday evening show, a timeline of the speed limiter issue from Ontario to all of North America. I am putting it up on my blog for your good reading and information. There is a few links you can go and look for to read what the different groups have to say on the topic. Later on I will post also some of the emails I have sent to concerned ministries in Ontario and Quebec.
I will also, in the coming weeks, put up the process that a bill and a petition has to follow in Canada and the USA.
Good reading!
Early July 2005
Land Line Now, the daily trucking news program of OOIDA, has broadcasted an interview with David Bradley from the OTA that announces the proposal to have mandatory the use of the speed limiter of all trucks on the roads of Ontario. A news release is available on the web site ontruck.org, then on the tab “newsroom”, then news release, look for 2005 on July 7th.
Already, OTA puts on conflicting information that truckers are not the ones to speed. Why a mandatory speed limiter then!
November 29th 2005
With a strong support of many groups, the OTA pushes to the Ontario Ministry of Transport their plan for the mandatory activation of the speed limiter of all trucks rolling in Ontario. Not only the ones that are based in the province, ALL TRUCKS OF NORTH AMERICA that have to roll in the province of Ontario. You can find the text of the proposal at ontruck.org/speelimiters and the list of the supporting groups.
December 2005
OOIDA and OBAC pressures the MTO to put a comment period so that all groups, truckers and individuals can express comments on the issue of the OTA. The MTO gives a 15 day period to receive, a first in Canada. OBAC makes a call to action for all members and OOIDA does the same for their Canadian members. An outstanding response forces the MTO to back off and get in a long process of study. Both associations have sent many pages of comments that are available on obac.ca
February 14th 2006 The American Trucking Association votes a resolution that all new truck manufactured has a voluntary speed limiter activated at a maximum of 68mph. The new owner of the truck can have it de-activated or set at a higher speed.
June 1st 2006
Laurie Scott, the MP of Halliburton-Victoria-Brock, who is also the opposition critic for environment, presents a private member bill #115, which transfers the OTA’s proposal into a Greenhouse Gas reduction law. Fast trucks are big on air pollution. The Finance and Economical Affairs permanent committee gets it for study after the mandatory 2 readings in parliament at Queen’s Park. Another flood of emails and faxes to the chair of the committee Mr. Pat Hoy mp of Chatham-Kent follows.
June 16th 2006
The Government of Quebec presents to the public the 24 actions plan to achieve the targets of the Kyoto protocol, the most popular Japanese word in the world, in the plan, to limit the speed of trucks over 10,000kg to a maximum of 105Km/h.
September 2006
“Road Safe America”, a group founded by Mr and Mrs Steve Owings, gets a big support in their crusade by nine carriers and they send a petition to FMSCA to limit the speed of commercial trucks over 24,000lbs to a speed not over 68mph. The Owings have lost their oldest son in a crash involving a semi in Virginia in November of 2001. The driver of the semi had pulled to the left shoulder to avoid a collision with stopped vehicles and struck the car of the Owings son that was there for the same reason.
These carriers are:
Schneider National, JB Hunt, US Xpress, ATS Intermodal, Jet Express, HO Wholding, Dart Transportation
The ATA sends a letter of support to FMCSA.
October 2006
The ATA turns-coat on their own resolution of February and now wants to make the speed limiter mandatory instead of voluntary. The ATA also sends a petition to the FMCSA.
Currently
Even if the Government of Ontario is still studying before the 3rd reading of Bill 115 and that there has been 2 petitions filed with FMCSA to modify the laws to trucks, nothing has been done yet. The process is quite long for our neighbours south of the 49th.
No government really wants to be the one that will impose restrictions on commerce and trucking, the back bone of the economy. Many have figured out it was not to legislators to regulate on the driver recruiting and retentions problems for carriers across North America. The carriers associations are not really looking for a Green House Gases reduction, if they really want to do so, the large carriers can always replace the older trucks with some that are with the new EPA standards. This is another issue that the ATA and the CTA are looking to get tax reductions, for their members, on these trucks.
The OTA is now on its third version of their reasons to limit trucks. They started by an economic desire to level the playing field for all, or level out the small business trucker and the small fleet operator because never can they get the same rebates and discounts the large fleets have for parts and trucks. After it went on for safety reasons. Again, groups and studies have proven the nonsense of the demands. No study can prove that slowing down part of the traffic is a good thing. There is only The Kyoto Protocol left. It’s now to the environment to be the reason.
Even if the legislators are in favour to reduce GHS, mostly in Ontario and Quebec, these same governments also have a powerful weapon called the Highway Safety Code. It would only take some orders to the law enforcement to limit the tolerance they use at a lower speed of 105Kmh. Tennessee has set the pace with in that way by giving two tickets to speeders, one for the speed and one for the extra air pollution. Many have tested these fines.
This would have benefits for the treasuries. First, an increase in the revenues of fines and to lower the payments made by the SAAQ in Quebec for bodily injuries, less waiting in the ER’s. Because there would be less accidents. These savings and extra income could be put on more law enforcement personnel and better road repairs.
Even in provinces and states that all insurance is on the owner, it could turn out to be a rate cut. More money in our pockets, more spending on things that are taxable, more income for the governments.
I know I’m pushing the envelope but, I try to look further then having my work income reduced. In this case, it could be to look up all the European way and limit all trucks to 90Kmh or 55mph, pay drivers by the hour instead of by the mile. This is another topic we can talk about later.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire