Yes...I agree...but in your case your home state allowed for those circumstances...in other eastern states it would have made it impossible to do.
*&^%^ Speed Limiters!!
- Thread starter layoutshooter
- Start date
Yes...I agree...but in your case your home state allowed for those circumstances...in other eastern states it would have made it impossible to do.
Yeah, I am well aware of it. The only proper answer is for all jurisdictions to enforce thier laws. ON and QC are choosing not too enforce and just assume guilt. I can follow a speed limit "ALL BY MYSELF" thank you very much. I did not go to a liberal school. I can read AND think AND act in a responsible manner. Post it and then enforce it. Only act against those who do NOT follow the law. This is NOT a difficult concept, well maybe for these duffusses it is.
Well just let me hold your hand, I wouldn't want to see you get hurt, you irresponsible duffus!!!
LOL!! You can't mean me!! You must be talking to some Obama Bum!!! Maybe even Barry himself!! He seems to think along the same lines that those whatchamacallits up in ON and QC do.
And in western states, speeds are higher. So, depending on the point you want to make, the supporting scenario can be constructed and we can both be right. Just note that two of my examples above are real and the delivery scenario did not hapen anywher near home (it was Arizona).
Guess the point is....it's all individual scenerios...priorities...
Yes we can both be correct.
The reality is, it's a law and one must deal with it. Bottom line.
This drifts a bit off the speed-limiter topic but in response to your post let me ask. You are obviously proud of your military service and rightly so. When you served, did you ever notice the irony that soldiers who serve their country in the cause of freedom are among the least free people of all?
Drop and give me 50!
Last edited:
True. It is also true that no law is cast in stone and the speed limiter laws definitely are not. The agencies that are required to write the administrative rules the laws require have yet to complete the task, nearly six months after the law was passed. Before the agency rules have even been written and the laws have been enforced, the laws have risen as an election issue.
The law is the law, except when it is not. So far, there is little to suggest that the provincial speed-limiter laws rise to anything close to laws that are clear and commonly enforced or will even exist a year from now.
Last edited:
Maybe so Phil...I hope for some's sake they make it a more local law...and then the OPP can just enforce the speed limit closer....along the Windsor corridor 119km is pretty well safe...120 and you are a sitting duck....especially in the Chatham area....I think they were trained in Ohio...
guido4475
Not a Member
You are absolutely right.This could also apply to the expediting industry as well.Amen, brother, preach it.
Phil, I hope you are right but I highly doubt you will see this as an election issue. Frank Klees is running to be the head of a party, if he wins that then he will seek to be premier when the next election rolls around. I can assure you that when that time comes, he will have forgotten all about his stand against the law when the OTA makes a "generous" donation to his campaign. Given the current political mood up here he really stands no chance of being elected premier anyhow (and I'd vote for him). He also states he would "re-examine" the law, not overturn it. The other candidate mentioned (Hillier) has about as much chance getting elected as us seeing a "Hillary for President" bumper sticker on Layout's truck.
This law is also a money making machine for the government because now, speeding tickets are a huge fine. We also have something up here called absolute liability, right now it is applied to trucks in cases of wheel separation (flying truck tires). If you were operating in Ontario and one of your wheels came off, through no fault of your own, you are guilty and fined $50,000. Even if you just had tire work done and they made the mistake, too bad, you're guilty. Drive a brand new truck off the lot and the wheels come off 3 miles later, yep, you're guilty. This law has been challenged to death and it is still rock solid on the books. My point in bringing this up, there is zero sympathy for anything trucking related up here. The public likes the speed limiter law and as long as the OTA supports it, it will stick. The OTA are very media savvy and have gotten the message out to masses that this is a good thing and the only truckers that don't support it are akin to drooling drugged out lunatics. The OTA's portrayal of anyone who doesn't support this is truly maddening. It also didn't help when the "big protest" against the law yeilded a dozen trucks. The media covered that pretty well too and the spin was it's just a few "rednecks" who oppose this "important safety law".
I hate the law, I agree with the Ohio approach (lots of cops on the roads) but that costs money, right now Ontario has none, so the "return on investment" from having a cruiser with a radar gun on the highway is much better after June 1 then before.
I hope I'm wrong, I really do.
This law is also a money making machine for the government because now, speeding tickets are a huge fine. We also have something up here called absolute liability, right now it is applied to trucks in cases of wheel separation (flying truck tires). If you were operating in Ontario and one of your wheels came off, through no fault of your own, you are guilty and fined $50,000. Even if you just had tire work done and they made the mistake, too bad, you're guilty. Drive a brand new truck off the lot and the wheels come off 3 miles later, yep, you're guilty. This law has been challenged to death and it is still rock solid on the books. My point in bringing this up, there is zero sympathy for anything trucking related up here. The public likes the speed limiter law and as long as the OTA supports it, it will stick. The OTA are very media savvy and have gotten the message out to masses that this is a good thing and the only truckers that don't support it are akin to drooling drugged out lunatics. The OTA's portrayal of anyone who doesn't support this is truly maddening. It also didn't help when the "big protest" against the law yeilded a dozen trucks. The media covered that pretty well too and the spin was it's just a few "rednecks" who oppose this "important safety law".
I hate the law, I agree with the Ohio approach (lots of cops on the roads) but that costs money, right now Ontario has none, so the "return on investment" from having a cruiser with a radar gun on the highway is much better after June 1 then before.
I hope I'm wrong, I really do.
Phil: There is no election in Ontario and won't be for several years. There is a Leadership contest being held by the out-of-power party. Those candidates will say almost anything to anyone to get an (internal party) vote. None of it is binding.
As to the issue of the regulations; these change all the time. The law has been passed by the Provincial Legislature and is on the books. Modifications to a law can be passed by an ORDER IN COUNCIL.
I wouldn't try that argument with an MTO scale officer.
You're issue isn't with Ontario but with your carrier.
Does your contract allow them to make this demand on their owner operators?
The speed chosen - 105 KPH - was apparently done in consultation with the diesel engine manufacturers. 65 MPH is the defacto optimal speed for a modern truck according to the Canada Safety Council which helped draft the law.
The Speed Limiter Law was spear-headed by the ONTARIO TRUCKING ASSOCIATION. I can only assume that the recent announcement that Turnpike Trains will be allowed under limited circumstances might be in return.
Rob.
(PS, thanks for finding the Transport Canada study. In Canada, highway regulations are strictly a Provincial responsiblity so TC can only supply studies.)
(PPS, I too am against the law and wrote my MPP and the Premier and Transport Minister to voice my views. Not that it did any good.)
Last edited:
Hey Phil, you sure got that right!! At least those in the military today are there by choice. As to dropping and giving 50, if I did that I would be out of business!!! LOL!! WAY too far out of shape!!
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Face it, that piece of **** law was put in place for the sole purpose for that law was to reduce the amount of AMERICAN Truckers doing business in that Country. As far as I am concerned, I will under no circumstances allow another country to tell me what I can do in my own Country.
Get off the fence OVM, either you are a Canadian or a US citizen. If the Dip ****'s up north were to limit the speed of your "truck" you would sing a different tune.
Get off the fence OVM, either you are a Canadian or a US citizen. If the Dip ****'s up north were to limit the speed of your "truck" you would sing a different tune.
How often have most of us said when you go to another country you follow their laws? Well Ontario and Quebec have changed their laws. We are leased to a company that has high security freight that goes into this country and the company we are leased to have said add the speed limiter or basically drop down into Express. The choice is yours become Express or......
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
I understand what your saying but... you knew there was a but didn't you. If their (what ever company you were leased to) tenth largest customer decided that they needed women to cover their face while driving professionally weather or not you had their freight on board, would you be okay with that? Do you agree that it is nothing more than a bunch of lobbyist's attempt to keep us from making money in their country?
Jim the choice is yours if you do not want to put the speed limiter on change companies. No way would I cover my face so I would have to move to a different company. Our company made a choice we can accept the choice or not.
Jim I do not agree at all with what Canada has done. When the United States tries to go this way I will do everything I can to try and stop it and will encourage others to do the same.
Our customer (FedEx Custom Critical) made a choice to have any truck that hauls sensitive freight or has a seal on their truck is to install the speed limiter. Our customer requires many things such as a white box, an amount of straps, load bars and when in White Glove many more items I see the Speed Limiter as one of those items nothing more and nothing less.
We have driven over 3000 miles with the speed limiter on through hills, mountains, winds, and rain and to tell the truth I forgot we had even added the limiter. I was talking to another driver about getting better about driving with my foot instead of the cruise all the time but was afraid I would forget and get to speeding. He reminded me I did not really need to worry about that as I had been speed limited! The speed limiter just has not affected us in any way.
Jim I do not agree at all with what Canada has done. When the United States tries to go this way I will do everything I can to try and stop it and will encourage others to do the same.
Our customer (FedEx Custom Critical) made a choice to have any truck that hauls sensitive freight or has a seal on their truck is to install the speed limiter. Our customer requires many things such as a white box, an amount of straps, load bars and when in White Glove many more items I see the Speed Limiter as one of those items nothing more and nothing less.
We have driven over 3000 miles with the speed limiter on through hills, mountains, winds, and rain and to tell the truth I forgot we had even added the limiter. I was talking to another driver about getting better about driving with my foot instead of the cruise all the time but was afraid I would forget and get to speeding. He reminded me I did not really need to worry about that as I had been speed limited! The speed limiter just has not affected us in any way.
With auto and truck manufacturing pulling out of Canada, hardly seems worth the effort. As far as specialty freight, same problem. Just not enough up there to fool with. The Cat runs a seperate fleet of trucks up there, so for the moment, I hope they keep it that way. That seems like the logical way to address it.