Court
rules speed-limiters are unsafe
By David
Tanner, Land Line associate editor
1 NW OOIDA Drive, Post Office Box 1000
Grain Valley, MO 64029 1-800-444-5791 (816) 229-5791 Fax: (816)443-2227 Email: sandi_soendker@landlinemag.com www.ooida.com www.landlinemag.com
Wednesday, June 6,
2012 – An Ontario
trial judge ruled in favor of owner-operator Gene Michaud today, setting a
precedent that the requirement for speed limiters on heavy trucks violated
the trucker’s right to personal safety. The judge also said the law violates
the principles of fundamental justice because it does not make the roads
safer as the province claimed, in fact, it creates a danger.
Michaud, an OOIDA life member from St. Catharines, Ontario, filed a constitutional challenge last year against the province over the law that requires heavy trucks 1995 and newer to have a working speed limiter set no higher than 105 kilometers per hour, or 65 mph. OOIDA President Jim Johnston says truckers far and wide have had an interest in this case because of the precedent it could set. “This is really the reason we took this case on to start with, and funded it, not only because of the impact on our Canadian members, but the even greater impact it could have on our U.S. members, both those who travel in Canada as well as those who may be subject to similar types of rulings in the U.S.,” Johnston said. “Right now, we’re battling with ATA and other interests that very much want to see speed limiters put on trucks.” Michaud runs the majority of his miles in the United States. He testified that the speed-limiter law violated his right to security as a person under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because his vehicle speed was capped below the flow of traffic in many jurisdictions. The trucker recalled numerous incidents in which he felt “bound and unsafe” during certain traffic situations. “We argued that the security of the person, in this case commercial driver Michaud, was threatened because of the speed limiter,” Michaud’s attorney, David Crocker of the Toronto firm Davis LLP, told Land Line Magazine. Testimony included an affidavit on behalf of Michaud from retired assistant administrator Julie Cirillo of the U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. In the affidavit, Cirillo cited research showing that uniform speeds are safer than when vehicles travel at different speeds. A forced speed differential, then, created an unsafe condition. Justice of the Peace Brett A. Kelly of the Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offences Division, agreed with those points. “His ability to have full care and control of all aspects of the vehicle and therefore safety is impaired as opposed to improved, and the situations described by Mr. Michaud – while they may be at times examples of poor driver practice – they are directly and indirectly the result of the regulation,” Kelly wrote. “Mr. Michaud has reason to be concerned for his security of person as he is being placed in a dangerous situation.” Additionally, Kelly said the speed-limiter law violates the principles of fundamental justice because it is arbitrary and does not do what the province said it would do in making roadways safer. Kelly does not have the power to strike down the law. If and when the province of Ontario appeals the case, a superior court does possess jurisdiction to strike down a bad law. Johnston said the judge made the right call in saying the provincial law does not accomplish what the province said it would. “He definitely ruled that it was arbitrary. Down here we call it ‘arbitrary and capricious,’ that there was no basis for it, and that there was also no evidence to show that this change has any effect whatsoever on safety,” Johnston said. The province of Ontario has a 30-day window to file an appeal in the case.
Courtesy of Landline
Magazine
Peter’s Comment
My own personal
experience of speed limiters is not good. I could have been killed by a speed
limiter on my tour coach while in conflict with a truck and car that were presumably
not speed limited.
I overtook a truck
going up a hill in a passing lane while returning empty from Wellington to
Auckland after my first tour in that coach.
The truck speed I estimated
at 80 kph when I started passing but as the road leveled out the truck picked
up speed and started gaining on me. My speed increased to 92 kph (the speed
limited speed) as we came to the end of the passing lane and I was unable to
pull clear. At that point a car approached from the opposite direction and I
was powerless to do anything other than straddle the center line so that all
three vehicles had a small piece of road each.
Neither the truck or
car driver took any evasive action other than to flash their lights, blow
their horns and keep the pedal down, a totally useless gesture to a driver who
was an innocent victim of bureaucratic madness, not to mention the same two
drivers prepared to die maintaining their right-of-way rather than yield.
One of the hazards
of speed limiters is that there is no warning that acceleration will cease
and there is no way to override it in an emergency.
Speed limiters
should be outlawed.
|
The Asker Trilogy, Highway America, The New Zealand Tour Commentary, The Life and Times of Freddie Fuddpucker
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Speed Limiter Dangers on Trucks and Buses
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
BEYOND THE SEAS
This is my latest historical novel Beyond the Seas When twelve-year-old orphan Nathaniel Asker is shipped from the back alleys of London to...
-
Eating Fruit - this opened my eyes Another circulating email: True or false ? Nothing beats a balanced diet that includes lots of f...
-
This is my latest historical novel Beyond the Seas When twelve-year-old orphan Nathaniel Asker is shipped from the back alleys of London to...
-
Climate Voters suffering from a bad case of sunstroke Members of Parliament were asked to leave a public launch meeting of Climate Voter...
No comments:
Post a Comment