An Ontario Appeals Court dismissed a last-ditch appeal challenging Ontario’s mandatory speed limiter legislation.
The challenge – continually backed over the years by U.S-based OOIDA. – was originally brought forth in 2012 by a driver who had set his speed limiter at 109.4 km/hr (as opposed to 105 km/hr) arguing that his personal security was at risk if he could not speed his truck up to make certain manoeuvres.
At that time, a lower court Justice of the Peace ruled the speed limiter rule was “unconstitutional.” But last year an Ontario Court of Justice reversed the earlier decision, saying the previous Justice of the Peace erred in concluding there was a breach of the right of security.
In addition, the Ontario court of justice agreed speed limiters were meant to achieve a reduction in truck emissions as well as increased road safety by reducing trucks speeds. He found the government’s expert evidence on the safety benefits of speed limiters to be credible.
This week, the Ontario Court of Appeals essentially reinforced last year’s decision by dismissing another appeal to challenge speed limiters.
Some trade media reports focused on a one-page summary of the latest decision, where even as he upheld the speed limiter rule, the judge apparently agreed that a driver could be endangered by not being able to accelerate to avoid collisions.
The actual decision, however, states that while endangerment might be a possibility, it’s anecdotal and extremely rare – less than 2 per cent. It confirms that not only is the law legal but it has also actually improved safety and reduced GHG emissions in Ontario.
Meanwhile, in the U.S. a federal US speed limiter rule was expected to be issued in early September but was just announced this week that it has been sent to the White House for further review and no new timetable for publication has been provided.