Argument for speed limiters is ‘weak’: Professor

WINNIPEG — Mandating speed limiters on all trucks in Canada could be a great idea — as long as you don’t think about the consequences, writes a transportation expert from Manitoba.

In a guest column penned for the Winnipeg Free Press, Barry Prentice, professor of supply chain management at the University of Manitoba, concludes that the argument that mandatory speed increase safety “is weak.”

And while there’s merit to the theory that capping speed on all trucks would save fuel and cut down on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the estimated net reduction attributable to speed limiters assumes that the remainder of the traffic flow is not affected.

“If speed governors on trucks cause increased traffic congestion or force more speed adjustments by cars and light trucks, GHG emissions could increase,” writes Prentice.

Professor Prentice prefers more speed traps, not engine
governors to slow down the few speeding trucks on the road.

The governments Ontario and Quebec — urged on by each provincial trucking association — plan to introduce legislation requiring that engine speed be set on every truck at 105 km/h.

Ontario’s newly appointed transport minister, Jim Bradley, confirmed this week to TodaysTrucking.com that he’s committed to seeing the mandatory speed limiter plan through.

Other proponents of the proposal, which was originally drafted by the Ontario Trucking Association in 2005, include safety groups, insurance companies, and law enforcement officials.

Opponents, though, include the Private Motor Truck Council of Canada and many independent owner-operators. The Owner Operation Business Association of Canada (OBAC) and its U.S. counterpart, OOIDA, have submitted to regulators literature and studies showing the possible adverse effects of speed limiters, such as increased rear-end collisions caused by variance in speed between vehicles. They also argue that more police enforcement, not engine governors, would reduce speeds for both cars and trucks.

Professor Prentice generally agrees with some of these positions. In his Free Press column, he acknowledges that car drivers are often most responsible for accidents involving trucks and enforcement should target those drivers especially.

Also concerning, writes Prentice, are the bottlenecks are congestion that results when vehicles travel at different speeds over the same network. “The most acute problems would occur on two-lane roads, but four-lane divided highways would be affected, too.”

From an economic standpoint, if speed limiter regulation cannot be imposed on trucks from other jurisdictions, especially the U.S., then domestic regulated carriers could suffer a competitive disadvantage inside and outside their jurisdiction, predicts Prentice.

Like OBAC, the professor advocates better speed enforcement as a deterrent for the small minority of runaway trucks on the highways. “This would allow the drivers to obtain a safe passing speed without facilitating excess speeding behavior.”

— with files from the Winnipeg Free Press