TP 14808 

SUMMARY REPORT 

ASSESSMENT OF A HEAVY TRUCK SPEED LIMITER 

REQUIREMENT IN CANADA 

On behalf of the Councils of Deputy Ministers / Ministers Responsible for Transportation 

and Highway Safety

July 2008 

TC 1002758

*1002758*
Disclaimer

This report summarizes consultant studies and other assessments on a 

heavy truck speed limiter requirement in Canada and does not necessarily 

reflect the views of Transport Canada or the Councils of Deputy 

Ministers/Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. 

Prepared by: 

Andrew Spoerri 

(With input from Pierre Thiffault and Jennifer Ulmer) 

Motor Carrier Division

Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate 

Transport Canada 

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................4 

1. CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION 

1.1.INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 12 

1.2. STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT .................................................................... 12 

1.3. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ......................................................................... 12 

1.4. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 13 

1.5. CONTEXT ........................................................................................................ 13 

1.6. IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................... 15 

2. CHAPTER TWO – PREPARATORY WORK 

2.1. DISCUSSION PAPER ...................................................................................... 16 

2.2. ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY IMPACTS ........................................................... 16 

2.3. SPEED LIMITER WORKPLAN ........................................................................ 17 

3. CHAPTER THREE – SUMMARY OF SPEED LIMITER STUDY & 

ANALYSIS RESULTS 

3.1. SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF MANDATING SPEED LIMITERS ..................... 19 

3.2. TRADE AND COMPETITIVENESS ASSESSMENT ........................................ 22 

3.3. ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF SPEED LIMITERS ................................... 29 

3.4. CASE STUDY .................................................................................................. 31 

3.5. INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 34 

3.6. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ASSESSMENT .......................................... 39 

4. CHAPTER FOUR – CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................42 

3
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rationale

In late 2005, the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) called on the federal and provincial 

governments to mandate the activation of speed limiters on all heavy trucks traveling into 

or within Canada at no more than 105 kilometres per hour (kph). 

At their September 2006 meeting, the Council of Deputy Ministers Responsible for 

Transportation and Highway Safety (CODMT) reviewed a Discussion Paper on Speed 

Limiters For Trucks Operating in Canada that contained preliminary environmental and 

truck safety benefits of a speed limiter mandate. However, it was also noted that further 

analysis concerning the national implications of such a mandate was necessary. Deputy 

Ministers and subsequently Ministers discussed the issue and agreed to work together to 

assess outstanding issues. Transport Canada (TC) offered to lead this effort with 

assistance from several of the provinces and territories. 

The issue of a speed limiter mandate within the Canadian context is complex and a 

thorough and impartial assessment of the potential implications of such a requirement in 

the Canadian context, particularly relating to highway safety and economic impacts, had 

never been undertaken. It is noteworthy that based on TC’s examination, this is the first 

time that such a holistic, multi-dimensional review of the potential national implications of a 

speed limiter mandate has ever been conducted in Canada or elsewhere in the world. 

With the assistance of a federal-provincial steering committee, TC commissioned a 

number of studies and assessments in 2007 to review the implications of a national speed 

limiter requirement from a safety, environmental, economic and operational perspective. 

This report, containing a synthesis of the key results from these studies and assessments, 

is intended to inform Canadian provincial and territorial governments on key aspects 

concerning speed limiters for heavy trucks. 

The analysis completed is timely, as two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec) have 

passed speed limiter legislation. There is also a petition before the U.S. government by the 

American Trucking Associations for a national speed limiter mandate. The studies and 

assessments, summarized below, examined the potential highway safety impacts of speed 

limiters through traffic modeling, the trade and competitiveness impacts, the environmental 

benefits via fuel savings and greenhouse gas reduction, the experience of speed-limited 

carriers through a case study, the experience of other countries with speed limiter 

legislation and technical considerations. 

Overview of Speed Limiter Usage

Prior to summarizing results from the studies and assessments, the following section 

provides an overview of heavy truck speed limiter usage in North America. 

Speed limiters electronically limit the maximum attainable road speed and have been 

standard equipment on the majority of heavy trucks built since mid-1990. 

4
Hence, these trucks come enabled with the requisite hardware that the truck purchaser is 

free to activate or not. The activation of speed limiters through the truck’s electronic control 

module (ECM) is relatively simple but requires manufacturer’s software and is passwordprotected. 

A common theme emanating from this work is that speed limiters are already heavily 

integrated into the Canadian and U.S. trucking industry. For many fleets, it is just “good 

business” to activate speed limiters in most, if not all, of their trucks. The larger the fleet, 

the greater the likelihood that speed limiters will be activated. Some fleet operators also 

require owner-operators (sub-contracted truckers) to activate their speed limiters, or if not, 

they must follow their corporate speed policy. Although smaller fleets are less likely to 

activate speed limiters, most operators follow a speed policy to reduce fuel costs. 

It is estimated that at least 60% of heavy truck fleets in North America use speed limiters. 

As larger fleets are more likely to be speed limited, the percentage of trucks that are speed 

limited is higher at an estimated 77%. While speed limiter settings within Canada are in the 

100-112 kilometer per hour (kph) range, settings on U.S. fleets may be somewhat higher 

to account for some higher state speed limits. The average setting across Canadian and 

U.S. fleets was found to be 105 kph. Main reasons cited for using speed limiters include 

reducing the top speed of the vehicle, reducing crash risk and increasing fuel economy. 

The main reasons for not using speed limiters are car-truck speed differentials, inability of 

the vehicle to pass, and refusal by non-company drivers to comply. 

Safety Implications of Mandating Speed Limiters

This study assessed the safety implications of mandating speed limiters through a traffic 

simulation model that estimates crash potential and how this may be impacted by different 

road and traffic conditions. 

Several highway scenarios are modeled in this study: freeway off-ramps segments, 

freeway on-ramps segments, combined on-off ramp segments, and straight freeway 

segments. A case study of a straight Canadian freeway section along the Queensway 

Express Way (QEW) in the Greater Toronto Area was also performed. Each scenario is 

modeled using experimental traffic characteristics such as: varying traffic volumes and 

truck ratios in the traffic stream; speed limiter compliance rates, and; several maximum 

speed limiter settings. 

The relevant traffic scenarios considered in this study are: 

 High (2000 vehicles per hour per lane) and low (500 vehicles per hour per lane) 

freeway volumes 

 High (15) and low (2.5) percentage trucks in traffic stream 

 Mandatory truck speed limiter compliance rates (75%, 100%) 

 Non-mandated speed limiter application (35% of truck population set at 105 kph) 

 Maximum speed limiter settings of 110, 105, 100, 90 and 80 kph. 

5
A Crash Potential Index (CPI) was used to evaluate the safety impacts as it captures 

speed differential, vehicle spacing and vehicle/driver braking capabilities. The CPI can 

distinguish dangerous vehicular interactions that could result in a collision. 

The key results of this study are: 

 The introduction of speed limiters set at 105 kph increases safety in the uncongested 

region of traffic flow for all geometric configurations considered, especially for the 

straight segment. As maximum speed is set at 110 kph the safety gains from the 

introduction of speed limiters becomes less pronounced. Maximum safety gains were 

obtained when the maximum speed limiter setting was at 90 kph for the uncongested 

traffic volumes under consideration. 

 As traffic volume and percentage trucks in the traffic stream are increased, the safety 

gains associated with mandatory limiters set at 105 kph become less pronounced. As 

the volume is set close to capacity (2000 vehicles per hour per lane - vphpl), more 

vehicle interactions are expected to take place which can lead to reductions in safety 

especially for those segments with increased merging and lane-change activity (such 

as, on and off ramps). In these instances the introduction of truck speed limiters can 

actually reduce the level of safety when compared to the non-speed limiter base case. 

 As compliance is increased, there is a small corresponding increase in safety for the 

mandatory speed limiter case. It should also be noted that as volume and percent of 

trucks increase, the safety gains associated with the full compliance are offset by the 

additional traffic turbulence caused by higher volume and percentage trucks. 

 The QEW case study application confirms the findings obtained from the sensitivity 

analysis of different traffic scenarios and speed control strategies. When the limiter 

speed is set at 105 kph, its introduction yields statistically significant safety gains along 

the case study corridor as compared to the base case (no mandatory limiters). A total 

of 30 simulation runs were performed, and in 21 cases the introduction of limiters 

yielded positive safety gains. 

Subsequent to the modeling work undertaken, a cursory investigation of the safety 

implications of speed limiters for two lane rural highways was carried out, based on a 

review of previous studies supplemented by an analysis of speed profiles for large trucks 

from Alberta and Saskatchewan and a review of provincial/territorial policies on setting 

speed limits on highways. The results show: 

• Typical speed limits on two-lane undivided rural highways are in the range of 80 to 

90 kph but highways can have posted speed limits of 100 kph. 

• Data from several two-lane rural undivided highways in Alberta and Saskatchewan 

with a posted speed limit of 100 kph showed approximately 40% of truck drivers 

achieve speeds exceeding 105 kph on these highways. This has safety implications 

for mandated truck speed limiters set at 105 kph, especially as it relates to the 

possibility of unsafe overtaking manoeuvres. 

6
• The possibility for increased unsafe passing maneuvers poses special safety 

challenges where trucks are subject to a maximum speed set by limiters for two 

lane undivided rural highways. Further study of this situation is required before a 

more definitive statement can be made concerning the safety implications of truck 

speed limiters for this type of highway. 

Trade and Competitiveness Assessment

This study assessed the potential trade and competitiveness impacts of mandating speed 

limiters under two scenarios: (1) speed limiter mandates only implemented in Ontario and 

Quebec and (2) a national speed limiter mandate implemented throughout Canada. Under 

both scenarios, all heavy trucks operating in the speed-limited jurisdiction would have to 

have their speed limiter electronically activated at 105 kph. This study also considered the 

potential economic impacts on the trucking sector and industry competitiveness issues 

relating to jurisdictions with and without speed limiter mandates. 

The analysis conducted was based largely on several speed limiter surveys and a survey 

of Canadian and U.S. trucking operations by the project team. 

This study concluded that there would likely be very few competitiveness issues from 

implementing a speed limiter mandate at 105 kph under either scenario. However, smaller 

fleet operators and owner-operators who feel that safety could be compromised may avoid 

operating in those speed-limited jurisdictions1

. 

Based on the survey results, the majority of freight in North America transported by large 

fleets is moved in trucks that are speed-limited around 105 kph. For those fleets already 

speed-limited at or below this speed, there would likely be no competitive impact operating 

under a speed limiter mandate. Canadian fleets operating in the 106-110 kph range would 

be able to operate under a 105 kph mandate with limited difficulty. In addition, those fleets 

operating at higher speed settings, or without the speed limiter set, noted that they typically 

travel at or below 105 kph to save on fuel costs. 

Under both scenarios, larger U.S.-based fleets would likely be impacted minimally as most 

operate at or below 105 kph. By contrast, owner-operators were concerned with being 

speed limited at 105 kph. Many owner-operators operate in U.S. states with higher speed 

limits and they believe that safety would be compromised by increased car-truck 

interactions (limited passing ability and increased speed differentials). Most U.S.-based 

owner-operators interviewed noted that they would stop operating into Canada because of 

these safety concerns. 

Under an Ontario/Quebec speed limiter mandate, a higher portion of Atlantic Canadabased trucking would be impacted than Western Canada-based fleets. It is estimated that 

about 30% of Atlantic Canada’s heavy trucks operate into Ontario and Quebec and would 

potentially be impacted. However, many large fleets are already speed limited at 105 kph. 

Based on similar truck traffic patterns (e.g. operations into Ontario and Quebec), an 

 

1 Many owner-operators sub-contract to large fleets with speed control policies in place.

7
estimated 10% of Western Canada’s heavy truck fleet would be impacted by such a 

mandate. Similar to the position noted by U.S.-based owner-operators, western owneroperators indicated that they would avoid operating into Ontario and Quebec. 

From an economic perspective, the main impact on the trucking industry from a speed 

limiter mandate would be savings in fuel and other vehicle operating costs. Based on an 

estimated annual fuel savings of 228 million litres (Environmental Benefits study), a 

national speed limiter mandate could save the trucking industry up to $200 million 

annually. In addition, there would likely be very little impact on shippers as the majority of 

freight is already being moved by fleets speed limited at 105 kph or less. A costing 

analysis was also performed to illustrate the potential trade-off between productivity 

benefits and increased costs. Results demonstrated that the increased fuel costs of 

operating at speeds higher than 105 kph outweigh any productivity gains. 

The owner-operators interviewed stated that speed-limited fleets would be placed at a 

disadvantage when recruiting drivers. This view was not shared by the majority of large 

and small fleet managers, who noted that it is the overall pay package that drivers consider 

such as mileage rates, quality of equipment and fringe benefits. It was their opinion that 

the lack of a speed limiter policy would not be an incentive in terms of driver recruitment 

and retention. 

TC also requested an assessment by the Trade Law Bureau of the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) of the trade agreement implications. DOJ counsel concluded that any proposed 

national speed limiter mandate would be generally consistent with Canada’s international 

trade law obligations and the potential for a successful challenge was viewed to be 

minimal. 

Environmental Benefits Study

This study assessed the potential national diesel fuel savings and corresponding 

greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from a national speed limiter mandate. It updated 

preliminary estimates provided in the 2006 Discussion Paper on Speed Limiters for Trucks 

Operating in Canada based on more detailed truck speed distribution and truck traffic 

volume data obtained from the provinces / territories. 

Annual truck traffic volume data for provincial highways with posted speed limits of 100 

kph and 110 kph was collected at various data collection sites and applied against 

provincial speed distribution data to produce estimated annual totals of truck travel above 

105 kph. Nationally, it was found that about 62% of heavy trucks travel at 105 kph or lower, 

23% were in the 105-110 kph range and 15% were at 110 kph or above. 

British Columbia and Manitoba represented the lowest proportion of truck traffic potentially 

impacted by a speed limiter requirement with only about 3% and 25% respectively of 

vehicles traveling above 105 kph. The Alberta (110 kph location) and Ontario (100 kph 

location) represented the highest proportion of truck traffic potentially impacted by the 

requirement with about 55% and 59% respectively. Most other locations would potentially 

see 35% to 50% of trucks impacted by a speed limiter requirement. 

8
A national mandate would potentially result in fuel savings of 228.6 million litres of on-road 

diesel. This represents 1.4% of the total on-road diesel consumed in 2006. Annual GHG 

savings are estimated at 0.64 megatonnes. Ontario and Quebec combined would account 

for 64% of the estimated national savings. 

Of the estimated annual fuel savings of 228.6 million litres, three provinces – Ontario, 

Quebec, Alberta – would account for 83% of the savings. 

Case Study

A case study was conducted to investigate the actual benefits and experience of speed 

limiter usage by carriers. Two large carriers participated, one from the for-hire sector and 

one private trucking firm. Together, these carriers operate about 400 power units. For 

confidentiality reasons, the carriers who participated in the study could not be named. 

Attempts were made to include an owner-operator; however, a participant could not be 

confirmed within the project schedule. 

The study collected both quantitative and qualitative information from the carriers with a 

focus on operational cost savings and safety. Improved fuel efficiency and fleet safety was 

stated as the motivation behind the introduction of speed controls in both firms and these 

policies have been in place for at least 20 years. Although it was not possible to collect 

data for both pre and post speed limiter implementation, both carriers believed that their 

speed control policies have had a significant impact on reducing fleet fuel consumption. 

They also reported that maintenance costs were also kept in check by operating their 

vehicles at reduced speeds. 

Although drivers interviewed noted some concerns about driving speed-limited trucks, 

overall they did not believe that the speed control policies within their companies have 

created any significant operational or safety concerns. Each carrier initially experienced

some tension in terms of drivers’ acceptance of speed limiters. However, drivers have 

generally accepted speed controls and expressed satisfaction with their jobs. 

The study also found that both fleets did not perceive any market disadvantage compared 

to their competitors as a result of their speed control policies, and in fact their policies 

support the ability to retain good drivers. 

From a safety perspective, both fleet operators believed that lower speeds have resulted in 

an improved safety record. Based on the collision data reviewed, there was no evidence 

that speed limiters are contributing to the occurrence of collisions. In fact, there were no 

rear-end collisions attributed to operating under a speed control policy in which another 

vehicle hit one of their trucks at highway speed. 

International Assessment

An assessment was conducted to learn from the experiences of three countries—Australia, 

the United Kingdom, and Sweden—which have implemented speed limiter legislation. 

9
Australia and the European Union2

 (EU) have legislated the use of heavy truck speed 

limiters since the early 1990s. Legislative approaches, impact on road safety, enforcement 

and compliance issues were researched. 

Australia implemented speed limiter legislation to address rising traffic fatalities involving 

heavy trucks and has noted a decrease in the number of collisions since its 

implementation. 

EU directives legislated the use of speed limiters in heavy trucks and buses for road safety 

and environmental reasons. However, the extent to which speed limiters have contributed 

to improved road safety and decreased heavy truck collisions is difficult to determine as no 

studies were completed to quantifiably draw this conclusion. 

Best available data comes from the U.K., which showed a 26% decrease in heavy truck 

accidents since the legislation was enacted in 1992. Furthermore, government officials 

interviewed in all three countries believe that speed limiters have had a positive impact on 

road safety. 

Australia and the EU require speed limiters for trucks over 12 tonnes to be set at no more 

than 100 kph and 90 kph respectively. The EU also limits the speed of buses over 10 

tonnes at 100 kph, and legislation was extended to medium-duty trucks over 3.5 tonnes in 

2002. However, EU directives do not apply to foreign trucks. A report was prepared for the 

European Parliament in 2001 that estimated the total cost savings of speed-limiting all EU 

trucks in the 3.5-12 tonne range at 3 billion euros. 

In all three countries, officials noted that compliance and enforcement efforts were integral 

to the effectiveness of the speed limiter policy. Roadside inspections, targeted 

enforcement of high-risk offenders, highway data collection camera networks, and annual 

inspections were used towards speed limiter compliance. However, the lack of sufficient 

enforcement personnel was noted as a consistent problem. 

Tampering was identified as a significant problem in all countries. Australian officials 

estimated a 10-30 % speed limiter tampering rate and data from Sweden suggested that 

40% of heavy trucks were exceeding their maximum allowable speed. Tampering 

methods included unauthorized changes to the electronic control module (ECM) settings. 

Operators would also adjust the tire size or transmission gear ratios to allow the true 

vehicle speed to exceed the speed limiter setting. 

Road safety concerns identified by officials and industry stakeholders included increased 

highway congestion and difficulty accessing on and off-ramps resulting from bunching of 

speed-limited trucks. In an effort to limit the impact of increased highway congestion from 

speed-limited trucks overtaking one another, U.K. officials restricted heavy vehicles to the 

inside lane of motorways. 

The importance of a consistent national approach to speed limiter compliance was 

stressed by a number of officials and stakeholders interviewed. Australian states and 

 

2

 The United Kingdom and Sweden are member states of the European Union. 

10
territories are provided flexibility with respect to legislative approaches towards compliance 

and enforcement. Similarly, the European Commission (EC) allows EU member states 

flexibility with specific regulatory provisions and implementation dates. However, the core 

legislative objectives (e.g. speed limiter set at 100 kph for all trucks over 12 tonnes) must 

be maintained. 

In the case of Australia of Sweden, regulations and policies proposed at the national level 

are not always adopted at the state, territorial or county level and this has led to 

inconsistencies in regulatory approaches toward enforcement and compliance. 

Technical Considerations Assessment

This report, based on survey responses from the Truck Manufacturers Association and 

Engine Manufacturers Association, summarizes technical issues and limitations of 

electronic speed limiters with respect to compliance, enforcement, and tampering. These 

issues should be considered in the context of a speed limiter mandate as they may 

influence the effectiveness of a jurisdiction’s enforcement efforts to ensure compliance. 

It is important to note that a heavy truck’s speed limiter setting itself does not control the 

vehicle’s top speed. Other variables, such as the tire-rolling radius and rear axle gear ratio, 

are essential for the ECM to calculate an accurate top speed. The customer specifies 

these variables when the truck is ordered and the ECM cannot be calibrated until final 

assembly. Both truck and engine manufacturers believe that the speed limiter setting 

should be a customer-configurable feature and pre-programming a particular setting is 

unrealistic and ignores the realities of customized production for the global market. 

The speed limiter setting can only be accessed with manufacturer software, ECM 

password and computer equipment. Many fleets set the speed limiter once upon delivery 

of a new truck according to the company’s speed control policy. The setting could 

conceivably be adjusted from within the truck cab assuming the necessary 

hardware/software and password were available. However, only vehicle owners and 

service personnel typically have access to the necessary equipment and passwords. 

There are also technical challenges with respect to interfacing with all truck (ECM) makes 

and models on a uniform basis in order to access the speed limiter setting. Each engine

manufacturer may have multiple hardware and software configurations and regularly 

update proprietary engine software. This may present challenges for enforcement 

personnel to access and verify the speed limiter settings in a uniform manner. However, 

reading tools are available that allow strictly read-only access to all major engine types. 

11
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This report contains a synthesis of key results from studies and related assessments 

completed to better understand the implications of implementing a heavy truck speed 

limiter requirement in Canada. At the outset of this exercise, the highway safety and 

economic impacts were not fully understood. A thorough and impartial assessment of the 

potential impacts of such a requirement in the Canadian context had never been 

undertaken and it was necessary to examine the safety, environmental, economic and 

operational aspects of mandating speed limiters. While there may be obvious benefits 

from slowing down all heavy trucks on Canadian highways, mandating speed limiters is a 

complex, multi-faceted issue and the analysis undertaken, drawn together in this report, 

injects a degree of clarity into the discussion. Whether mandating a speed limiter 

requirement will be further considered by Canadian jurisdictions is the issue at hand. 

1.2 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT 

This report is organized into four chapters. Chapter One provides an overview and 

background on the speed limiter issue. Chapter Two describes the results from the 

preliminary assessment undertaken in the Discussion Paper, TC’s safety assessment and 

the workplan developed to guide the requisite studies. Chapter Three summarizes the key 

results of the consultant studies and other analysis. Chapter Four draws conclusions 

based on the analysis completed. 

1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 

The issue of a mandatory speed limiter requirement for heavy trucks operating in Canada 

was first discussed at the spring 2006 meeting of the Councils of Deputy Ministers/ 

Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety (CODMT/COMT). The 

Councils agreed that the issue of mandated truck speed limiters required further study and 

the discussion would be revisited once the necessary analysis of the potential impacts was 

completed. This analysis has been finalized and summarized herein. The purpose of this 

report was to inform CODMT/COMT on key aspects concerning mandating speed limiters 

for heavy trucks. At the April 2008 CODMT/COMT meetings, it was agreed to publicly 

release all speed limiter reports simultaneously in English and French once translations 

were completed. All reports are now available on the Transport Canada (TC) website at: 

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/speed_limit/menu.htm (English) 

> 

http://www.tc.gc.ca/securiteroutiere/limiteur_vitesse/menu.htm (French) >

12
1.4 BACKGROUND 

In late 2005, the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) called on the federal and provincial

governments to mandate the activation of electronic speed limiters3

 on all heavy trucks 

(manufacturers or gross vehicle weight rating of 11,000 kg or more) at no more than 105 

kilometres per hour (kph). The proposal would require all heavy truck owners or operators 

to set the speed limiter microchip within the vehicle’s electronic control module (ECM) at 

the prescribed maximum speed (105 kph). This would apply to all trucks traveling within 

Canada regardless of domicile. 

In order to inform all jurisdictions on the issues surrounding this proposal, a federalprovincial working group was struck to guide the preparation of a Discussion Paper on the 

matter. The report (August 2006), albeit a preliminary assessment, noted potential 

benefits to the environment from reduced fuel consumption and potential highway safety 

benefits from slowing down heavy trucks (see section 2.1 for further detail on the report). 

The CTA proposal and the Discussion Paper were discussed by the CODMT/COMT and it 

was concluded that further analysis was necessary to better understand the implications of 

a speed limiter requirement. Federal, provincial and territorial Deputy Ministers agreed to 

work together to assess the outstanding issues and TC offered to lead this effort. 

Drawing on the collaborative effort used to prepare the Discussion Paper, a federal–

provincial steering committee was formed to guide this additional work. Membership 

included Transport Canada and representatives from the transportation departments of 

Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Manitoba and British Columbia. The steering committee 

developed and approved a workplan that focused on the studies and other analysis that 

would be used to better understand the impact of speed limiters in Canada. 

Starting in 2007, a number of consultant studies and assessments were undertaken to 

examine the feasibility of mandating truck speed limiters. These studies analysed the 

safety impacts of speed limiters on highways through traffic modelling, quantify the 

environmental benefits of fuel savings and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and 

assess the trade and competitiveness impacts of a speed limiter mandate in both the 

Canadian and North American context. A case study was also carried out to assess two 

carriers’ experiences with implementing speed limiters. In addition, TC undertook an 

assessment to identify technical and tampering issues associated with speed limiters and

an international assessment to learn from the experiences of other countries that have 

implemented speed limiter legislation. A brief overview of each study is found in 

section 2.3. 

1.5 CONTEXT 

The trucking industry in Canada is a large and growing sector, estimated to be worth about 

$55 billion4

 a year (2003). The for-hire sector includes approximately 10,000 carriers and 

 

3

 Speed limiters, also formerly known as speed governors on mechanically controlled engines, are devices which limit 

the maximum attainable road speed of the vehicle through the engine’s electronic control module (ECM). 4

 Transport Canada website – Carrier by Industry Segment. This figure does not include the owner-operators sector. 

13
represents roughly $24 billion of the $55 billion. The private trucking sector also includes 

approximately 10,000 carriers and generates about $25 billion of the industry total. 

Although private trucking accounts for just over 50% of the heavy trucks on the road, it 

only represents about 35% of the vehicle kilometres as distances traveled are typically 

shorter. There are an estimated 36,000 owner-operators in Canada with about half of 

these based in Ontario and Quebec. Although the owner-operator segment is made up 

primarily of self-employed individuals, many provide services on a sub-contracted basis to 

the for-hire and private trucking sectors. 

The speed limiter debate has been one of the more divisive issues to impact the Canadian 

trucking industry in some time. Some interests strongly support speed limiters claiming that 

the fuel savings and safety benefits make the decision obvious. Others in the industry 

staunchly oppose speed limiters citing the potential safety hazard from increased truck-car 

speed differentials. Others still are undecided, claiming the expected results perhaps do

not justify the means (regulation) and there may be other voluntary or other means to 

achieve the same benefits. 

The activation of electronic speed limiters in heavy truck fleets in North America is already 

common practice. Recent speed limiter surveys5

, supported by estimates from U.S. and 

Canadian trucking associations, suggest that up to two-thirds of large fleets already have 

speed limiters activated. Speed limiter settings are in the 100-112 kph range with an 

average setting of 105 kph (about 65 miles-per-hour) for both Canadian and U.S.-based 

large fleets. However, some U.S. fleets set their speed limiters up to 70 mph to account 

for higher state speed limits. The main reasons cited for using speed limiters include 

reducing the top speed of the fleet, reducing crash risk and increasing fuel economy. The 

main reasons for not using speed limiters are car-truck speed differentials, inability of the 

vehicle to accelerate and refusal by non-company drivers to comply. 

Two Canadian jurisdictions have passed legislation requiring the activation of speed 

limiters on all heavy trucks operating in their province. On June 16, 2008, the Ontario 

Legislature passed legislation (Bill 41) requiring the electronic activation of the speed 

limiter for all heavy trucks operating in Ontario at no more than 105 kph. The Ontario 

regulation is expected to become a requirement by fall 2008 with full enforcement likely by 

fall 2009. Quebec has also passed speed limiter legislation under a package of traffic 

safety measures to improve road safety (Bill 42) and is expected to implement speed 

limiter regulations at the same time as Ontario. 

In the U.S., the American Trucking Associations (ATA) announced their support of a 

national speed limiter mandate and submitted a petition for rule-making to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation in October 2006. The proposal to the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) petitioned for heavy truck manufacturers to set 

speed limiters on new trucks at no more than 68 mph (about 110 kph) and to the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) prohibiting the adjustment of the speed 

limiter on all trucks higher than 68 mph or tampering of the speed limiter setting. NHTSA 

and FMCSA subsequently issued a notice in the federal register requesting comments on 

 

5

 U.S.-based surveys of American carriers by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) and Bishops 

Consulting for the Transportation Research Board.

14
the ATA petition. Close to 4,000 comments were submitted. A petition, similar to ATA‘s, 

was also submitted by Road Safe America. NHTSA and FMCSA are currently working 

together to review all relevant information and have not yet issued a decision on whether

or not to grant or deny the ATA request. 

On the international front, speed limiters have been legislated on all heavy trucks operating 

in Australia and Europe for more than a decade. Recently, the European Union (EU) also 

extended the speed limiter requirement to new medium-duty commercial vehicles. 

Government officials in these countries believe that speed limiters have generally had a 

positive effect on road safety through a reduction in the number and severity of heavy truck 

accidents. However, challenges remain with respect to enforcement, compliance rates 

and tampering. An analysis of the link between mandating the use of speed limiters and 

reductions in number and severity of collisions involving heavy trucks has not been 

undertaken. 

1.6 IMPLEMENTATION 

There are no current Canadian requirements or restrictions for the installation or use of 

vehicle speed control systems. A national speed limiter mandate would likely require a 

harmonized regulatory approach with the provinces and territories. Under the National 

Safety Code (NSC), a new standard could be developed, subject to the approval of the 

provinces and territories, through the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators 

(CCMTA). However, the NSC has no legal authority in itself and therefore each jurisdiction 

would need to develop and implement “mirror” regulations. The federal Motor Vehicle 

Transport Act (MVTA) and the applicable provincial and territorial legislation would then 

need to be amended, based on the NSC standard, to ensure consistent application to all 

commercial vehicles operating in Canada, regardless of their origin. 

15
CHAPTER TWO – PREPARATORY WORK 

2.1 DISCUSSION PAPER 

Following preliminary discussions by CODMT/COMT in 2006 concerning the feasibility of a 

speed limiter requirement, it was decided that a scoping paper was necessary to better 

understand the issues. On behalf of the Councils, TC completed a Discussion Paper on 

Speed Limiters for Trucks Operating in Canada in August 2006 that generally concluded 

the following: 

• A speed limiter requirement (105 kph) could result in significant annual fuel savings 

for truck traffic using 100 kph highways of 2% or 227 million litres, and greenhouse 

gas emissions (GHGs) could be reduced by 640 kilotonnes per annum; 

• A speed limiter requirement would affect 40% of truck traffic on highways posted at 

100 kph, with 15% experiencing a speed reduction greater than 5 kph; 

• Average truck speeds on these highways would be reduced by 2 kph, thereby 

reducing the average speed of all traffic by 0.4 to 0.5 kph; 

• Speed limiters could result in a positive effect on both truck speeding and the 

severity of truck crashes. However, further assessment was needed on the 

possible safety risks (e.g. car/truck interactions) due to altered traffic patterns— 

bunching of speed-limited trucks, on and off-ramp congestion, increased driver 

frustration etc.; 

• Issues relating to Canada/U.S. trade and industry competitiveness required further 

analysis and a strong enforcement program would be required as compliance and 

tampering is an issue in other countries. 

2.2 ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY IMPACTS

In 2006, TC conducted a preliminary assessment of the safety implications of mandating 

speed limiters. This included an analysis of the scientific literature on the relationship 

between speed and safety and specifically on the speed differential between trucks and 

cars. Key results of this analysis, summarized following, provided the impetus for the 

Safety Implications study: 

• Speed differentials only contribute to a limited portion of road crashes. For 

example, it has no effect on the occurrence of single vehicle crashes or head-on 

collisions. 

• Speed limiters would decrease the crash risk of trucks currently traveling above 

105 kph as well as the severity of their crashes when they occur. 

16
• Speed limiters for trucks would generate some positive effects on the speed 

differential as it would decrease the speed variance within the trucking population 

and prevent trucks from overtaking cars traveling at or around the speed limit. 

• There is no evidence that slightly increasing the mean (car-truck) speed differential 

by slowing down trucks to 105 kph will increase crash risks for trucks. 

• The increase in interactions between cars overtaking speed-limited trucks and the 

risks associated with these interactions are unknown and more research is needed 

on this issue. 

On the basis of these observations, Transport Canada’s assessment concluded the 

following: 

1. Rejecting the CTA proposal to mandate speed limiters based solely on safety 

risks was not warranted by the scientific literature and that further research was 

needed, and; 

2. Traffic modeling simulations would help further clarify the safety implications of 

the proposal and bring valuable quantitative evidence to this issue. 

2.3 SPEED LIMITER WORKPLAN 

In order to address the additional analytical needs identified in the Discussion Paper, a 

federal-provincial steering committee was convened to guide the work. Transport Canada

led the effort and drafted a workplan scoping out key issues to be addressed. The 

workplan, vetted and ultimately endorsed by the steering committee, structured the speed 

limiter studies that would be completed. The workplan was also circulated to the Policy and 

Planning Steering Committee of the CODMT. 

The following briefly summarizes the scope of key studies and other assessments 

completed while Chapter Three summarizes the key results of this work. 

1. Safety Implications of Mandating Speed Limiters – evaluates whether speed limiters 

would reduce the risk and severity of crashes for trucks and assesses the safety impact 

of speed differentials and car-truck interactions in a speed-limited environment. 

2. Trade and Competitiveness Assessment of Speed Limiters – evaluates the trade and 

competitiveness impacts of electronically speed limiting heavy trucks in Canada under 

two scenarios: first is a national requirement implemented throughout Canada and the 

second is a requirement only implemented by some provinces (e.g. Ontario and 

Quebec). 

3. Environmental Benefits of Speed Limiters – quantifies the anticipated annual diesel fuel 

savings and greenhouse gas reductions from a national speed limiter mandate. 

17
4. Case Study - assesses the real-world experience (benefits, effectiveness and 

implementation issues) of speed limiters through carrier case studies in two Canadian 

trucking segments (for-hire, private). 

5. International Assessment –researches the experiences of countries with national speed 

limiter legislation in place. Australia, the United Kingdom, and Sweden were selected 

and the analysis focused on compliance and enforcement strategies, the effectiveness 

of the legislation, and viewpoints from stakeholders in government, enforcement, 

trucking associations and others. 

6. Technical Considerations –summarizes technical issues and limitations of electronic 

speed limiters with respect to compliance, enforcement, and tampering based on 

questionnaire responses from the Truck Manufacturers Association and the Engine 

Manufacturers Association. 

18
CHAPTER THREE – SUMMARY OF SPEED LIMITER STUDY & ANALYSIS 

RESULTS 

3.1 SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF MANDATING SPEED LIMITERS 

No consensus has been reached to date among stakeholders as to the safety implications 

of mandatory speed limiters for large trucks in Canada. Moreover, an analysis of the 

scientific literature on the speed/safety relationship confirms that there is still significant 

ambiguity surrounding the issue. This study therefore attempts to provide a scientific basis 

for informing Canadian jurisdictions as to these safety implications, and hopefully reduce 

some of the uncertainty concerning the issue of mandatory speed limiters. 

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety implications of mandating speed 

limiters for heavy trucks at different maximum speeds, including the 105 kph threshold. As 

the basis for measuring safety performance and assessing the implications of truck speed 

limiters, the study develops a microscopic traffic simulation model that provides accurate 

real time estimates of crash potential (or safety performance) and assesses how this 

potential is affected by different types of highways and traffic conditions. The term “safety” 

in this report encompasses both the expected frequency and severity of crashes. The 

results provide useful insights as to the conditions under which truck speed limiters may 

impact highway safety. 

Methodology

In brief, the project team: 

 Conducted a scientific review of literature to identify and analyze relevant studies on 

the potential safety implications of speed limiters; 

 Developed a framework to investigate the safety implications of truck speed limiters for 

different road and traffic scenarios, and integrated this framework into VISSIM, a 

microscopic traffic simulation platform that provides accurate real-time estimates of 

crash potential; 

 Calibrated and validated VISSIM with safety performance measures derived from 

observed vehicle tracking data obtained from the NGSIMS traffic study; 

 Developed a Crash Potential Index (CPI) that distinguishes between dangerous and 

non-dangerous vehicular interactions, and validated it on the basis of real crash/noncrash data; 

 Applied the simulation to different road geometries, traffic volumes, number of lanes, 

truck ratios (percentage of trucks in the traffic stream) etc., and investigated the 

potential impact of speed limiters on crash risk; 

19
 Established a representative freeway corridor case study for application of the 

simulation model and evaluated the potential safety impacts of the speed limiter 

strategy as applied to this straight highway corridor. 

Several highway scenarios are modeled in this study: freeway segments including offramps, freeway segments including on-ramps, freeway segments with combined on-off 

ramps, and straight freeway segments. A case study of a straight Canadian freeway 

section along the Queensway Express Way (QEW) in the Greater Toronto Area was also

performed. Each scenario is modeled using experimental traffic characteristics such as: 

varying traffic volumes and truck ratios in the traffic stream; speed limiter compliance rates, 

and; several maximum speed limiter settings. 

The relevant traffic scenarios considered in this study are: 

 High (2000 vehicles per hour per lane) and low (500 vehicles per hour per lane) 

freeway volumes 

 High (15) and low (2.5) percentage trucks in traffic stream 

 Mandatory truck speed limiter compliance rates (75%, 100%) 

 Non-mandated speed limiter application (35% of truck population set at 105 kph) 

 Maximum speed limiter settings of 80, 90, 100, 105 and 110 kph. 

The 105 and 110 kph maximum settings were adopted to reflect recent Ontario and 

Quebec speed limiter legislation. The remaining maximum speed control strategies have 

permitted an appreciation of the sensitivity of safety to maximum speed thresholds. In 

order to obtain an appreciation of the results of speed limiter safety for an existing corridor, 

the model has been applied to the Eastbound QEW freeway in Halton Region for the 

segment from Guelph Line to Burloak Drive. 

The CPI was used to evaluate the safety impacts of implementing speed limiters. In brief, 

the CPI captures speed differential, space headway and vehicle/driver braking capabilities 

in real-time for different vehicle interactions. A higher CPI suggests a higher safety risk. It 

can distinguish dangerous vehicular interactions that could produce a crash. In this study, 

the CPI is validated using the NGSIM database as well as actual crash data. 

Key Results:

 The introduction of speed limiters set at 105 kph increases safety in the uncongested 

region of traffic flow for all geometric configurations, especially in the straight segment. 

As maximum speed is set at 110 kph the safety gains with the introduction of 

mandatory limiters become less prominent. This result holds for the uncongested 

region of traffic flow. The maximum safety gains were obtained when the maximum 

control speed was set at 90 kph for uncongested traffic volumes. 

 As volume and percentage trucks are increased the safety gains associated with 

mandatory limiters set at 105 kph become less pronounced. 

 As the volume is set close to capacity (2000 vehicles per hour per lane) more vehicle 

interactions take place and this leads to a reduction in safety especially for those 

20
segments with increased merging and lane-change activity, such as, near on and off 

ramp segments. In these instances the introduction of truck speed limiters can actually 

reduce the level of safety when compared to the non-speed limiter case. 

 As speed limiter compliance rates are increased, there is a small corresponding 

increase in safety for the mandatory speed limiter case. It should also be noted that as 

volume and percent of trucks increase, the safety gains associated with the full 

compliance are offset by the additional traffic turbulence caused by higher volume and 

percentage trucks. 

This suggests that for higher traffic volumes and truck ratios, speed differentials and lack

of space to adjust speed/lane can compromise safety. Given the typical high traffic 

volumes and percentages of trucks experienced on many freeways in Canada, this result 

can present some safety challenges. It could nevertheless be argued that average speeds 

could decrease below 105 kph as volume approaches congestion, limiting the potential 

negative impacts of speed limiters. 

Case study: Straight highway segment on the QEW west of Toronto

A corridor case study was also undertaken for the eastbound QEW, which compared the 

scenario with and without mandatory speed limiters set at 105 kph and 100% compliance. 

Ten-day average volumes from 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM were used with a traffic composition 

of 5% of trucks. The QEW case study application confirms the findings obtained from the 

sensitivity analysis of different traffic scenarios and speed control strategies. The 

introduction of speed limiters set at 105 kph yields statistically significant safety gains 

along the case study corridor as compared to the base case (no mandatory limiters). A 

total of 30 simulation runs were performed, with an average 16% gain in safety (CPI/veh). 

In 21 cases, positive safety gains were observed. The differences in the CPI/veh between

the base case and the limiter case yielded significant positive values suggesting that for 

the corridor, limiters resulted in safety gains. 

Considerations relative to undivided highways

The traffic modeling evaluation of the safety impacts of speed limiters for trucks on 

undivided highways would require developing a completely different modeling approach. 

However, a parallel investigation of the safety implications of limiters for two lane rural 

highways was carried out, based on a review of previous studies supplemented by an 

analysis of speed profiles for large trucks from Alberta and Saskatchewan and a review of 

speed limit policies across Canada. The results show that speed limits on two-lane 

undivided rural highways are generally in the range of 80 to 90 kph. However, two-lane 

undivided rural highways can have posted speed limits of 100 kph. On these highways 

with higher posted speeds the data shows that approximately 40% of the trucks travel at

speeds greater than 105 kph. 

The implementation of mandatory speed limiters on rural two-lane highways may lead to 

an increase of passing maneuvers onto the opposing traffic lane. The possibility for 

increased unsafe passing maneuvers poses special safety challenges where trucks are 

subject to a maximum speed set by limiters for two lane undivided rural highways. Further 

21
study of this situation is required before a more definitive statement can be made 

concerning the safety implications of truck speed limiters for this type of highway. 

3.2 TRADE AND COMPETITIVENESS ASSESSMENT

The report, Trade and Competitiveness Assessment of Mandated Speed Limiters for 

Heavy Trucks Operating in Canada, was prepared to assess the trade and 

competitiveness impacts of electronically restricting the speed of all heavy trucks operating 

in Canada with speed limiters. This assessment considered the potential economic impact 

on trucking and industry competitiveness issues relating to jurisdictions with and without 

speed limiter mandates. It also contains an impact analysis on issues specific to the 

trucking industry such as impact on shippers and driver recruitment. 

The trade and competitiveness assessment was conducted under two scenarios. The first 

was based on speed limiters implemented only in Ontario and Quebec with an emphasis 

on the potential impact on other regions in Canada as well Ontario/Quebec–U.S. issues. 

The second was a national speed limiter mandate implemented throughout Canada with 

an emphasis on Canada–U.S. issues. Both scenarios assumed all heavy trucks traveling 

in the speed-limited jurisdiction would have to have the speed limiter set at 105 kph. 

The key results require qualification as follows: 

• Comprehensive data on inter-provincial and Canada-U.S. truck movements was 

limited. 

• Analysis conducted as part of the study was largely based on several speed limiter 

surveys as well as a survey conducted by the project team of Canadian and U.S. 

trucking firms. These surveys were of a relatively small sample size but 

nevertheless “best available data” was used to estimate and extrapolate anticipated 

trade and competitiveness impacts on the industry at large. 

The survey conducted as part of this study included 55 interviews, 40 for-hire and private 

fleets of various sizes (6 to over 1,000 power units) and 15 owner-operators. About half of 

the owner-operators interviewed were U.S.-based and operated into Canada. 

Canada–U.S. Trade and Truck Traffic

The U.S. is by far Canada’s most important trading partner, capturing 69% (in value) of 

Canada’s total trade, or $575 billion in 20066

. The most important trade flows between 

Canada and the U.S. involved Ontario and the U.S. central region, totalling $161 billion. 

Around 75% of Canada-U.S. trade carried by truck (by value) was concentrated at six 

border crossings, three of these in Ontario (Windsor, Fort Erie, Sarnia). Ontario accounts 

for nearly two-thirds of Canada-U.S. truck border crossings. Ontario and Quebec 

combined account for three-quarters of this traffic. 

 

6

 Transport Canada’s Transportation in Canada 2006 report

22
Trucking is of vital importance to the economies of Canada and the United States. By 

value, trucking accounts for about 70% of total trade between Canada and the U.S. 

Currently there are 6.3 million one-way truck trips between Canada and the U.S. with 

about 70% of these trucks being Canadian-based and 30% are U.S.-based. 

Use of speed limiters 

Speed limiters are in widespread use within North America’s trucking industry. Recent 

speed limiter surveys in the U.S. indicate that about 60% of heavy truck fleets are speed 

limited7

. As larger fleets are more likely to be speed limited, the percentage of trucks that 

are speed limited is higher at an estimated 77%. Similar surveys have not been conducted 

in Canada but available information indicates a similar level of usage. There seems to be 

a correlation between speed limiter usage and fleet size; the greater the fleet size, the 

greater likelihood of speed limiter usage by that fleet. In addition, larger fleets were more 

likely to be setting lower speeds than smaller fleets. Results show that the majority of large 

North American fleets use speed limiters and have all, or nearly all, of their vehicles 

equipped with activated speed limiters. In contrast, only a limited number of smaller fleets 

(typically comprised of less than 20 units) and the majority of owner-operators do not use 

speed limiters or have higher settings. 

Common speed limiter settings in Canada range from 100 to 112 kph, with an average 

setting of around 105 kph for Canadian speed-limited fleets. Based on U.S. survey results, 

speed limiter settings in American fleets range from 60 to 90 mph (96.6 kph to 145 kph) 

with an average per truck setting also around 105 kph. The proposals by the Canadian 

Trucking Alliance (CTA) and the American Trucking Associations to mandate speed 

limiters at 105 kph and 68 mph (109.5 kph) respectively largely reflect the current practice 

of larger fleets. 

Safety and reduced vehicle operating costs are the main reasons cited for speed limiter 

usage. The safety arguments for speed limiters centre on the premise that lower heavy 

vehicle speeds improve road safety by reducing the number and severity of truck 

collisions. Surveys on the use of speed limiters in North America show that fleet 

managers, especially for larger fleets, are of this view. 

The argument against speed limiters is that safety could be compromised in situations 

where lack of passing speed or increased speed differentials between trucks and other 

vehicles occur (such as when passing slower moving vehicles or in traffic merging 

situations). Interviews conducted during this study suggest that owner-operators and 

managers of smaller fleets tend to support this viewpoint. 

 

7

 Survey by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) found 71% of respondents used speed limiters on at 

least some of their fleet vehicles. Survey of company-employed drivers by the U.S. Owner-Operators Independent

Drivers Association (OOIDA) found a 64.6% speed limiter usage rate. Survey for the Transportation Research Board 

found a 82.5% usage rate. Project survey found all large fleets (20 or more vehicles) were speed -limited. 

23
North American speed limits for heavy vehicles vary from 80 kph to 120 kph depending 

upon the jurisdiction. In total, 23 states and 4 provinces currently have legal truck speeds

above 105 kph. 

Competitiveness Assessment

The general conclusion from the study’s assessment is that there would likely be very few 

competitiveness issues from implementing speed limiter mandates at 105 kph. The main 

concerns originate from smaller fleets and owner-operators who feel that safety could be 

compromised under a speed limiter mandate and hence state that they would likely avoid 

operating in those speed-limited jurisdictions8

. This would, in effect, reduce competition in 

these jurisdictions by reducing the number of operators competing for business. Some of 

these operators also state that their productivity may be compromised and they would not 

be able to travel as far in light of other regulatory requirements such as hours-of-service. 

The majority of freight in North America transported by large fleets is moved in trucks 

speed limited around 105 kph. Again, the larger the fleet, the greater likelihood of speed 

limiter activation. This statement is supported by speed limiter settings and usage rates 

drawn from several speed limiter surveys. For those fleets already speed limited at or 

below this speed, there would likely be no competitive impact from a 105-kph speed limiter 

mandate under either scenario. 

However, the results also show that only about 60% of Canadian and U.S.-based heavy 

truck fleets are speed-limited. But this percentage increases to 77% on a per-truck basis 

as larger fleets make more use of speed limiters than smaller ones. Based on the project 

survey, those Canadian fleets operating in the 106-110 kph range would likely be able to 

operate within a 105 kph mandate with limited difficulty. A costing analysis conducted as 

part of this study, and described later, shows these fleets would in fact save money by 

reduced fuel costs. 

Those fleets operating with higher speed settings, or without settings, noted they typically 

travel at or below 105 kph to control fuel costs. The study survey found that half of the 

smaller fleets did not activate speed limiters on their trucks, but did maintain speed policies 

of posted speed or lower. For the most part, these fleets have their routes set for these 

speeds and would feel little economic impact. It has been estimated that 62% of trucks on 

intercity highways across Canada are already traveling at 105 kph or less9

. Another 22% 

travel between 105 and 110 kph for which the time-savings over most runs would be 

minimal (for example, maximum 30 minutes on a 600 km run assuming entire run is at top 

speed). Companies with a speed policy in this range indicated, for the most part, little 

adverse impact on their operations with reducing speed to 105 kph. 

 

8

 Again, these results are based on a relatively small survey sample and may not be representative of views of all small 

fleet operators and owner-operators. 9

 Environmental Benefits of Speed Limiters report, prepared for Transport Canada November 2007. 

24
The ATA proposal for a mandated speed limiter setting of 110 kph (68 mph) appears to be 

based on the common practices of larger fleets in the U.S. The interviews and analysis 

conducted as part of this project did not indicate any specific reasons why different limits 

(105 vs.110 kph) could not be implemented. Many of those interviewed indicated that in 

the interests of harmonization, both countries should adopt one setting. Harmonization 

may also negate the possibility of any challenges under trade agreements. 

Scenario 1: Ontario & Quebec Speed Limiter Mandate

Data drawn from Statistics Canada Commodity Origin Destination Survey suggests that 

such a mandate would affect a much higher portion of Atlantic Canada’s trucking industry 

than Western Canada’s. 

Implications for Atlantic Canada 

Should Quebec and Ontario mandate speed limiters, about 30% of Atlantic Canada’s 

heavy trucks would need to set their limiters accordingly due to the interaction of the 

Atlantic industry with Quebec and Ontario. Many large fleets based in the region operate 

into the U.S. and move through Ontario and/or Quebec on the return portion of the trip, 

completing a triangular movement. As a result, the majority of Atlantic Canada long 

distance fleets would potentially fall under the speed limiter mandate. However, most large 

fleets are already operating at the mandated 105 kph or less and hence would not be 

affected. Those interviewed as part of this study did not express any competitive concerns. 

In contrast, owner-operators felt their safety would be adversely impacted by increased 

car-truck interactions, especially when traveling in the higher speed limit states. They also 

noted that in some circumstances their productivity could be aversely affected. 

Implications for Western Canada 

Unlike Atlantic Canada, only a small portion of Western Canada’s trucking industry 

interacts with Ontario and Quebec. Over 70% of Western Canada’s truck revenues with 

Eastern Canada either originates in, or is destined for, Manitoba. This means the majority 

of carrier operations in Western Canada would be unaffected if Ontario and Quebec were

to adopt a speed limiter mandate. It is estimated that only about 10% or less of Western 

Canada’s heavy truck population would be affected by Ontario and Quebec mandating 

speed limiters. While most large fleets in Eastern Canada and Western Canada are 

already at or below the proposed 105 kph maximum speed, only a small portion of smaller 

fleets in the west would need to adjust their speed limiter settings. 

Available speed data for B.C. indicates that, for the most part, truck speeds in the province

are already below the proposed 105 kph limit due to the constrained highway design 

speeds in the mountainous terrain. 

25
Western-based owner operators indicated that if Ontario and Quebec implemented the 

policy they would avoid operating in those provinces, as they believe that the slower speed 

would increase car-truck interactions and cause potential safety hazards. They also 

expressed concerns that if they set their speed limiters for Ontario and Quebec runs, that 

this would adversely affect safety outcomes when operating within Western Canada and 

the U.S., where they conduct the majority of their business. They also indicated increased 

safety risk when traveling on two-lane undivided highways in Alberta and Saskatchewan 

as well as two-lane portions of the Trans-Canada highway in Northern Ontario. These 

arguments, however, could be mitigated should these operators invest in and use the tools 

that would allow the speed limiter setting to be changed as they enter and leave speedlimited jurisdictions. 

Implications for Ontario/Quebec – U.S. Traffic

U.S.-based fleets operating into Ontario and Quebec would need to set the speed limiter 

on their trucks at 105 kph unless they chose to reset the setting when operating outside of 

the speed limited jurisdictions. However, most fleets would avoid this as it would likely 

place control to alter settings in the hands of the driver. Further, all companies interviewed 

maintained a consistent speed limit policy across all of their operations and did not adjust 

speed limiter settings by region or jurisdiction. They also noted that they would not allocate 

their fleet dependant on speed limiter requirements. 

Despite the potential competitive disadvantage from U.S.-based fleets operating into 

Ontario and Quebec at lower speeds compared to other U.S.-based fleets that do not 

travel north, this is again not an issue as most of these fleets already operate at or below 

105 kph. 

In addition, 47% of Canada-U.S. truck traffic (by value) moves between Ontario and its 

seven neighbouring states (Michigan, Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana 

and Illinois). The maximum legal truck speed limit in these states is 65 mph (105 kph) or 

less, suggesting that this traffic would be unaffected by a speed limiter mandate (assuming 

the trucks do not exceed legal speed limits). 

Owner-operators and small fleets expressed opposition to the speed limiter mandate citing 

safety concerns due to increased car-truck interactions. On this basis alone, 80% of the 

owner-operators interviewed as part of the project survey indicated that they would no 

longer haul into Ontario or Quebec to avoid being speed-limited. This argument could be 

mitigated to the extent that these operators could decide to purchase and use the tools 

necessary to change speed limiter settings. 

Scenario 2: National Speed Limiter Mandate

U.S.-based fleets operating into Canada would be required to operate those trucks with 

speed limiters set at 105 kph, regardless of whether those trucks are operating in Canada 

or the U.S. Concern has been expressed that speed differences created by setting truck 

speed limiters at 105 kph could cause competitive issues for these fleets vis-à-vis other 

U.S.-based fleets that do not operate into Canada. These other fleets could operate at 

higher speeds and perhaps gain a competitive advantage. 

26
This in turn could keep U.S. fleets out of Canada, as they would not want to lose this 

competitive edge (by operating at higher speeds) in their U.S. operations, which are 

potentially much larger than their Canada-U.S. operations. 

Larger U.S.-based fleets interviewed were not concerned with this potential speed 

restriction as they are already operating at or below 65 mph (105 kph). As well, ATA did 

not note this as a concern when they were interviewed. 

As most large Canadian fleets operate at or below 105 kph, there would be minimal impact 

under this scenario. With higher posted speed limits on highways in some provinces (New 

Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Saskatchewan), a speed limit differential could 

conceivably be created between trucks and cars, something that does not currently exist in 

Canada. However, the reality is that most trucks already operate below the average speed 

of cars. 

Owner-operators, on the other hand, were very much concerned with being speed-limited 

at 105 kph. Many owner-operators are long-haul drivers who operate on longer runs and 

hence are exposed to states that have higher speed limits. Their primary opposition to 

mandated speed limiters relates to safety concerns and increased car-truck interaction 

from limited passing ability and increased speed differentials. U.S.-based owner-operators 

noted that due to these safety concerns, they would stop operating into Canada. 

Some small fleets and owner-operators interviewed do not set the speed limiter settings or 

set them near 110 kph to allow flexibility when passing slower moving vehicles, particularly 

on two-lane highways.

Economic Impact on the Trucking Sector 

A costing analysis was performed to illustrate the potential trade-off between productivity 

benefits and increased costs. Results show that the increased fuel costs of operating at 

speeds higher than 105 kph are greater than any productivity gains. A speed of 105 kph 

(65 mph) was used as the baseline speed and compared against truck operating costs at 

113 kph (70 mph) and 121 kph (75 mph). The analysis assumed maximum productivity 

such as traveling at maximum posted speed limits and optimizing hours-of-service 

regulations. In addition, the analysis only considered increased fuel costs and not other 

costs (e.g. tire wear) from operating at higher speeds. 

Overall the analysis showed that driving at 105 kph provides the lowest overall cost as the 

fuel savings at the lower speed outweigh the increased productivity benefits of the higher 

speeds. There is an overall cost savings of 2% when operating at 105 kph compared to 

operating at 113 kph and 9.5% when operating at 121 kph. As noted, this is based on a 

maximum theoretical productivity. In actual driving conditions, this level of productivity 

would not likely to be achieved due to operating in and around areas with slower traffic 

speeds as well as loading and unloading wait times. 

27
While the company or vehicle owner would realize this overall cost saving, the transport 

driver increases income by driving at the higher speeds10. For the example analyzed, the 

driver’s pay would be 6.5% higher at 113 kph. So while the transport fleet owner benefits 

from the lower speed, the driver benefits from the higher speed. 

From strictly an income point of view, drivers would have a preference for higher speeds. 

Owner-operators experience higher gross annual revenues by driving at the higher speed, 

but a lower net income after increased fuel expenses. 

The main economic impact on the trucking industry would be a savings in fuel and other 

vehicle operating costs. These fuel savings have been estimated at 228 million litres 

annually if speed limiters were mandated nationwide in Canada11. Depending upon fuel 

prices paid by the fleets in their area of operations, this could represent an overall savings 

to the trucking sector in the order of $190 million to $200 million annually. 

Fleet operators and owner-operators could conceivably have some runs adversely affected 

where they are at or near their Hours-of-Service limits. However, only a few fleet 

operators interviewed indicated this as a concern and most indicated that they would 

adjust their delivery schedules accordingly. A detailed audit of several firms would be 

required to quantify these potential costs. However, owner-operators felt that where these 

productivity losses occurred, it could potentially cost them a day’s pay12. 

Impact on Shippers

Overall, there would be very little impact on shippers as the majority of freight is already 

being moved by fleets that are speed limited at 105 kph or less. The impact would be felt 

mainly by shippers who may wish to ship within tight deadlines requiring trucks to travel 

illegally at higher than posted speeds to meet delivery time lines. 

The interviews conducted as part of this study indicate that mandated speed limiters would 

not keep larger fleets from operating into such jurisdictions. While owner-operators 

indicated they would avoid such jurisdictions, the numbers that actually may do so, out of 

the total available population of trucks, would likely be relatively small and not affect 

competitiveness as far as shippers are concerned. 

Driver recruitment and retention 

Some expressed the view that fleets may use higher speeds as a driver recruitment tool, 

or fleets operating into speed-limited jurisdictions could lose drivers to fleets not operating 

in such jurisdictions. Conceivably, this could affect the ability of these fleets to move freight 

and hence they could potentially lose market share. 

 

10 Assuming the driver is paid on a distance vs. time basis (e.g. x cents/mile) and covers more distance over a set 

interval by traveling at a higher rate of speed. 11 Environmental Benefits of Speed Limiters Report 12 The period of time over which the potential income loss (e.g. a day’s pay) would be realized was not specified. 

28
The owner-operators interviewed shared these views that drivers may avoid speed-limited 

fleets or operating in speed limiter jurisdictions. However, fleet managers, large and small, 

did not share this view. They indicated it was the overall pay package that the driver 

considers including such factors as mileage rate paid, monthly miles attained, quality of 

equipment and fringe benefits. It was their opinion that being speed limited would not 

affect their ability to recruit and retain drivers. 

A large scale, scientifically designed survey of drivers concerning their previous 

employment decisions and employment expectations would be required to quantify the 

extent to which that speed limiters can be an effective driver recruitment and retention tool. 

However, the qualitative information available indicates the ability to attract drivers via this 

means is quite limited. 

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF SPEED LIMITERS

The report, Environmental Benefits of Speed Limiters for Trucks Operating in Canada, was 

prepared to update preliminary fuel savings and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction 

estimates provided in the 2006 Discussion Paper. Due to data availability issues and time 

constraints associated with the preparation of the Discussion Paper, initial estimates were 

based on limited information. The updated estimates are drawn from more detailed truck 

speed distribution and truck traffic volume data obtained from the provinces and territories. 

While the total amount of truck travel increased, the truck speeds were somewhat lower 

than previously estimated, limiting the overall savings. The updated annual fuel savings 

are now estimated at 228.6 million litres, 0.6% above the previously estimated total of 

227.3 million litres. This represents 1.4% of the total diesel fuel consumed by road 

vehicles operating in Canada in 2006. 

The annual GHG savings are now estimated at 0.64 megatonnes, compared to the 

previous estimate of 0.63 megatonnes. Ontario and Quebec combined account for 64% of 

the estimated national savings. 

Truck traffic volume data was obtained primarily from provincial traffic count programs. 

Annual truck travel (vehicles greater than 11,000 kg) on provincial highways with posted 

speed limits 100 kph or higher was estimated at 24.6 billion kilometres (using 2006 data). 

Speed distribution data was collected from Weigh-in-Motion and provincial sites, and then 

averaged to produce a speed distribution profile by province. These profiles were then 

applied to the total truck volume data for each province to produce estimated annual totals 

of truck travel above 105 kph. For provinces with roads posted at 110 kph, separate speed 

distributions were calculated for 110 kph posted highways and 100 kph posted highways.

As shown in Exhibit 1, it was found that nationally, approximately 62% of truck traffic 

traveled at 105 kph or lower, 23% were in the 105-110 kph range and 15% were at 110 

kph or above. 

29
Exhibit 1: Average Speed Distribution by Province 

Percent of Truck Traffic 

Within Speed Interval Indicated 

Province 

<105 105-110 110-115 115-120 120+

New Brunswick * 

(100 kph locations) 64.2 22.5 9.2 3.0 1.1 

New Brunswick 

(110 kph locations) 55.1 31.5 9.6 2.5 1.3 

Quebec 

(100 kph locations) 64.5 23.0 9.8 2.1 0.6 

Ontario 

(100 kph locations) 49.1 28.0 16.6 5.0 1.3 

Manitoba 

(100 kph locations) 75.4 19.4 4.4 0.2 0.1 

Saskatchewan 

(110 kph locations) 50.1 23.2 16.1 7.1 3.5 

Saskatchewan 

(100 kph locations) 54.1 28.0 12.0 3.6 2.3 

Alberta 

 (110 kph locations) 44.4 26.5 18.9 7.3 2.9 

Alberta 

 (100 kph locations) 69.7 22.5 6.0 1.3 0.5 

British Columbia** 

(100 kph locations) 97.2 1.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 

National average*** 62.4 22.7 10.3 3.2 1.4 

*Speed distribution data for New Brunswick used for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. 

**Terrain constraints limit vehicle speeds on most commercial vehicle routes in B.C. 

***Arithmetic average of speeds shown in each column 

British Columbia and Manitoba represented the lowest proportion of truck traffic potentially 

impacted by a speed limiter requirement with only about 3% and 25% respectively of 

vehicles traveling above 105 kph. The Alberta 110 kph location and Ontario 100 kph 

location represented the highest proportion of truck traffic potentially impacted by the 

requirement with about 55% and 59% respectively. Most other locations would potentially 

see 35% to 50% of trucks impacted by a speed limiter requirement. 

This data served as the basis for estimating the percent fuel savings from each speed 

interval above 105 kph (120+, 115-120, 110-115, 110-105). To calculate the fuel savings

associated with limiting truck speeds to a maximum of 105 kph for each province (Exhibit 

2), the fuel consumed13 by truck traffic in each interval was calculated using total truck 

traffic for that interval. 

 

13 Fuel consumption rates are exponentially related to speed (fuel consumption increases faster than speed increases). A 

base fuel consumption rate of 40L/100km for trucks traveling 105 kph is assumed based on fuel consumption rates from

NRCan’s report “Fuel Efficiency Benchmarking in Canada’s Trucking Industry, March 2000”. 

30
Of the estimated annual fuel savings of 228.6 million litres, three provinces –Ontario, 

Quebec, Alberta– accounted for 83% of the savings. 

Exhibit 2: Estimated Fuel Savings and GHG Reductions by Province if Speed 

Limiter Policy Implemented 

Province Estimated Annual

Total Truck Travel 

(billion km) 

Estimated Annual 

Fuel Savings 

(millions litres) 

Estimated Annual 

GHG Savings 

(megatonnes) 

Newfoundland 0.2 1.9 0.01 

Nova Scotia 0.4 4.9 0.01 

PEI n/a 0.0 0.00 

New Brunswick 0.4 6.8 0.02 

Quebec 5.8 46.3 0.13

Ontario* 9.9 100.3 0.28

Manitoba 0.6 2.8 0.01 

Saskatchewan** 1.4 21.2 0.06

Alberta 3.7 42.4 0.12 

British Columbia 2.2 2.0 0.01 

Total 24.6 228.6 0.64

*Savings were calculated for 6.2 billion km of travel to cover traffic on roads posted at 100 kph. Roads 

posted at 90 kph or less were not included due to available data indicating speeds higher than 105 kph are

not that prevalent. 

**Savings calculated for 1.2 billion km of travel as roads posted at 90 kph or less were excluded 

3.4 CASE STUDY 

A case study was conducted to document the benefits and experience of speed limiter 

usage within the Canadian trucking industry. Two large trucking firms were selected 

through their respective trucking associations, one for-hire carrier and one private carrier. 

Both are based in Ontario, and together have about 400 power units on the road. Due to 

business confidentiality reasons, these carriers cannot be identified. Several attempts 

were made to locate an owner-operator carrier for this study. However, due to time 

constraints, a participant from this sector could not be secured. This was further 

complicated by a key study criterion, electronic activation of the speed limiter. Many 

owner-operators do not voluntarily activate the speed limiters in their trucks but may follow 

a speed policy. 

The background research found that the three trucking sectors, as represented by their 

respective associations, had rather polarized views on the issue of mandatory speed 

limiters. The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), the association representing the for-hire 

sector and the group who first proposed the notion of mandatory speed limiters in trucks, 

continues to support their original position and is a strong advocate of a national speed 

limiter mandate. The other end of the spectrum is the Owner-Operators Business 

Association of Canada (OBAC). OBAC is strongly opposed to mandatory speed limiters in 

trucks and is against any provincial or national regulations making such requirements 

compulsory. 

31
The third group, the Private Motor Truck Council of Canada (PMTC), representing 

Canadian private carriers, questions the rationale for a speed limiter mandate specific to 

trucks, and questions the view that truck speeding is a significant issue. PMTC believes 

that GHG / nitrous oxide (Nox) reductions are being realized through other means such as 

the 2007 engine specifications and those planned for 2010, and the move toward ultra-low 

sulphur fuel in 2006, and that a speed limiter mandate should specifically target chronic 

offenders (e.g. those drivers/carriers with speeding violations). Further, PMTC feels that 

the entire issue of speeding needs to be addressed in a manner that includes all offending 

vehicles, not just trucks. 

This study collected both quantitative and qualitative information from these carriers with a 

focus on operational cost savings and safety. The study sought to make a comparison of 

speed limiters pre and post implementation. However, it was not possible to collect any 

quantifiable data for the pre-implementation period as both carriers have used some form 

of speed control for close to 20 years and representative (pre) data was unavailable. 

Cost savings and safety were motivating factors behind the introduction and continued use 

of speed controls in both firms. Management stated that speed limiters have resulted in 

lower operating costs through reduced fuel consumption, and allowing them to remain 

competitive. A second important consideration was the belief that speed controls would 

result in fewer collisions. Both carriers build sufficient lead-time into their delivery 

schedules, accounting for maximum allowable speeds and hours-of-service requirements. 

The for-hire carrier maintains a speed limiter setting of 101 kph (99 kph on cruise control) 

and the private carrier’s setting was 108 kph (103 on cruise). Both also set a critical speed 

setting in the ECM whereby if the truck exceeds this maximum allowable speed, typically 

traveling downhill, the company is immediately notified and the driver receives a warning

message. 

Both carriers used a tiered disciplinary system for driver speed infractions. Although both 

reported speeding violations, termination was a rare occurrence. In one instance, however, 

the for-hire carrier reported that they caught a driver disarming the speed limiter function 

within the ECM in order to travel at higher speeds. Tampering within the ECM was evident 

and the driver was terminated. The private carrier did not report any instances of 

tampering. 

Fuel Savings

Despite the data limitations, the for-hire carrier believes that their speed control policy has 

had a significant impact on reducing fuel consumption. The private carrier also stated that 

the speed control policy has resulted in fuel savings, but the positive impact was reduced 

due to travel patterns (e.g. short haul runs through urban areas and lower-speed rural 

highways). Fuel consumption data for the private carrier was only available for a two-year 

period and; therefore, no quantifiable estimate in fuel savings due to the speed control 

policy was possible. 

32
The for-hire carrier maintains a consistent speed limiter policy across its entire fleet and 

requires its owner-operators to activate the speed limiter to the same speed as company 

trucks. In some cases, this has resulted in reduced fuel efficiency for the owner-operators 

as the driveline specifications of their trucks may be configured for a cruising speed higher 

than the speed limiter setting. 

Maintenance Costs

Both carriers stated that speed limiters have resulted in reduced wear on engines, brakes 

and tires, thereby reducing maintenance costs. Engines operating at lower rotations-perminute (RPM) will experience less wear and reduced maintenance requirements, truck 

brakes will run cooler at lower speeds and last longer, and tires on trucks operated at 

lower speeds will also wear less. While both firms expressed the opinion that their speed 

control policy has reduced maintenance costs, given the absence of pre-implementation 

cost data, the study was not able to draw any quantitative conclusions regarding the effect 

of speed limiters on maintenance and repair costs. Both carriers also reported no 

significant costs associated with servicing the ECM or setting the speed limiter function. 

Driver Issues

One driver from each carrier was interviewed to provide insights from those operating 

speed-limited trucks. Recognizing that only two drivers were interviewed, it cannot be 

assumed that the views expressed are representative of all drivers in that particular 

trucking sector. The for-hire driver supported a speed limiter mandate, while the private 

carrier’s driver believed governments should not be regulating truck speeds and such a 

requirement would lead to increased highway congestion and potentially reduced safety. 

Drivers interviewed did not believe that the speed control policies within their companies 

have created any significant operational or safety concerns. However, each carrier has 

experienced some tension in terms of drivers’ acceptance of speed limiters. Concerns and 

objections included reduced ability to pass other trucks quickly, resulting in trucks traveling 

side-by-side on highways for extended periods of time; too low setting of the critical speed 

setting, forcing drivers to ride the brakes when traveling downhill; and rude treatment 

including being cut off by other motorists and non-speed limited trucks traveling at higher 

speeds. Despite the above, the drivers generally accepted the speed control policy and 

expressed satisfaction with their jobs. 

The case study also found that neither of the carrier fleets studied appear to have any 

market disadvantage compared to their competitors as a result of their speed control 

policies and in fact may have a market advantage associated with driver retention and 

driver job satisfaction. Both carriers reported a low driver turnover rate and their speed 

control policies did not appear to be a factor in hiring new drivers. However, some owneroperators wishing to provide services to the for-hire carrier have declined when learning of 

the speed limiter requirement. 

33
Safety Issues

A review of speed violations at both carriers indicated a relatively low number of 

incidences. Speeding tickets were typically received on lower speed non-freeway roads. 

Both carriers believed that their lower fleet speed has resulted in an improved safety 

record. About half of the reported collisions were low-speed yard accidents (on company 

property) resulting in property damage only. For the remaining collisions, the following 

was noted: 

• There was no evidence of vehicles rear-ending either the for-hire or private carrier’s 

trucks or ‘vehicle run under truck’ collisions occurring at high speeds. 

• There is no evidence of fatigue being a factor in any collision; and 

• Truck drivers were noted as being less likely to be considered “at fault” than the 

other driver. 

The private trucking firm representative noted that they have had issues with other drivers 

hitting the back of their trucks on a number of occasions just as the truck was exiting the 

freeway onto the road near their headquarters. The truck was not traveling at full highway

speed at the time of the collision; rather it was decelerating as it entered the exit ramp. The 

for-hire carrier also experienced a number of rear-end collisions; however, specifics on 

which vehicle (for-hire truck or other) hit the other were not available. The for-hire carrier 

has never experienced a collision at highway speed in which another vehicle rear-ended 

one of their trucks. 

The collision data analyzed does not show any evidence that speed limiters are 

contributing to the occurrence of collisions and both carriers believe that their speed 

control policy has resulted in a reduction in collisions. 

3.5 INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT 

Australia and the European Union (EU) have legislated the use of heavy truck speed 

limiters since the early 1990s. Worldwide, since it is estimated that up to 30 countries 

require the use of truck speed limiters, including Japan, Zambia and recently a state in 

India, it seemed prudent to learn from the experience of others. As such, the report, 

Learning from Others: An International Study on Heavy Truck Speed Limiters, was 

completed and is summarized below. 

The assessment centered on three countries: Australia, the United Kingdom and Sweden. 

These countries were selected for a variety of reasons including geographic similarities to 

Canada, best available literature and data, and availability of key contacts to discuss 

speed limiter issues. Speed limiter legislative approaches, compliance regimes, 

enforcement methods, and tampering issues were highlighted. 

34
As part of the study plan, the rationale and driving force behind each jurisdiction’s speed 

limiter legislation was researched. A comprehensive assessment or study completed to 

rationalize the implementation of a speed limiter requirement was not undertaken by any 

jurisdiction. The one exception was a European Commission (EC) report, referenced later 

in this section, assessing potential benefits from a speed limiter directive applying to 

medium-duty vehicles. 

In Australia, speed limiter legislation was but one of a number of road safety initiatives 

implemented in 1990 to deal with the rise in traffic fatalities involving heavy trucks. Road 

safety and the environment were the main reasons for the EC legislating the use of speed 

limiters in heavy trucks and buses for its 27 member states. There is no evidence of any 

systematic research or modeling work conducted to link anticipated outcomes to the 

proposed speed limiter legislation prior to implementation. 

This doesn’t suggest that there have not been any positive results from such legislation. 

Government officials interviewed generally believe that speed limiters have had a positive 

impact on road safety and have contributed to a decrease in accidents involving heavy 

trucks. For example, since the U.K. enacted speed limiter legislation in 1992, heavy 

vehicle accidents have dropped by 26%. In Australia, the number of heavy truck accidents 

has also decreased since the legislation was implemented. However, the extent to which 

speed limiters contributed to these decreases is difficult to determine as no studies were 

completed in any participating jurisdiction to directly link their use with improvements to 

road safety. 

Due to this ambiguity and unproven link between speed limiters and demonstrable 

improvements in road safety, it may be difficult to draw any conclusions on the safety 

benefits that could be gained in Canada directly from the international experience. 

Australia implemented its speed limiter legislation in 1990 (heavy trucks over 12 tonnes 

and buses over 5 tonnes) requiring these vehicles to have their limiters set at no more than 

100 kph. States and territories were provided flexibility in the legislative approach to 

regulate speed limiter settings for other vehicle classes provided the 100 kph maximum 

setting was not exceeded. For example, road trains with two or more trailers are speed 

limited to 90 kph in South Australia and the Northern Territory. 

In 1992, the European Commission issued a directive (92/6/EEC) for all member states 

requiring the use of speed limiter devices on buses over 10 tonnes (and more than eight 

passengers) set at no more than 100 kph and trucks over 12 tonnes registered after 

January 1988 set at 90 kph. In 2002, the legislation was extended to medium-duty 

vehicles (Directive 2002/85/EC) to include buses less than 10 tonnes (and more than eight 

passengers) and trucks over 3.5 tonnes. The target implementation date was January 

2005 although some countries delayed implementation up to January 2008. These 

directives did not apply to foreign trucks registered outside of the EU. 

Although EC directives are binding legislation, member states are allowed some flexibility 

when drafting regulations including staggered implementation dates and other adjustments 

that would not infringe on the core objectives of the directive. 

35
Sweden, for example, delayed implementation until 1994 for the heavy-duty directive and 

January 2008 for the medium-duty directive to allow industry time to comply with the 

provisions. 

Some jurisdictions, including the U.K. and Sweden, have implemented additional speed 

limiter legislation, extending the scope of the requirement to other heavy vehicle weight 

categories. 

The U.K., for example, implemented additional legislation for all trucks exceeding 7.5 

tonnes and registered since 1992 to be fitted with speed limiters and also delayed 

implementation of the medium-duty directive until 2008. 

The safety and environment rationale behind the EC speed limiter directives was premised 

on the argument that lower speeds result in fewer accidents and casualties as well as 

lower fuel consumption and air emissions. The basis for extending the scope of the 

directive to medium-duty vehicles also included eliminating an unfair competitive 

advantage by operators of lighter-duty vehicles registered in EU countries who may 

provide faster or cheaper transportation services by not being speed limited. 

A study conducted in the Netherlands estimated a cost savings of 89 million euros from 

reduced fuel, maintenance, etc. for speed limiting trucks less than 12 tonnes. In a 2001 

report to the European Parliament and the Council14 evaluating potential savings from the 

medium-duty directive, the Netherlands estimate was extrapolated to a total estimated cost 

savings of 3 billion euros for the European Union from speed limiting all trucks in the 3.5-

12 tonne range. The report also noted the traffic congestion problem of speed-limited 

trucks overtaking each other over long distances, but stakeholder input on the 

effectiveness of speed limiters was generally positive. Some criticized the lack of adequate 

enforcement to combat the high rate of tampering. A potential competitive issue of non-EU 

trucks, exempted from the speed limiter directive, carrying goods at higher speeds within 

the EU bloc was also highlighted. The solution suggested to member states to rectify this 

situation was to consider making the use of speed limiters mandatory for trucks from nonEU countries as part of future trade agreements. 

The issue of inconsistent application of speed limiter directives was also raised by some 

stakeholders, specifically relating to eligible classes of vehicles and exemptions allowed for 

older vehicles. EC directives allow flexibility with respect to implementation, effective 

dates for the directive and eligible classes of vehicles (dependant on the registration date) 

would vary between member states. In the U.K., for example, the medium-duty directive 

applies to trucks over 3.5 tonnes registered after October 2001. Officials believe that this

has resulted in operators holding onto older trucks longer as these vehicles can travel up 

to 70 mph (113 kph). Newer speed-limited trucks in this class cannot exceed 56 mph (90 

kph). The U.K. government is attempting to rectify this imbalance by lowering the speed 

limit for all eligible trucks on motorways to 60 mph, including those registered pre-2001. 

 

14 Report from the Commission of the European Communities to the European Parliament and the Council on the

Implementation of Council Directive 92/6/EEC of 10 February 1992 on the Installation and Use of Speed Limitation

Devices for Certain Categories of Motor Vehicles in the Community, Brussels, 14.06.2001

36
The following summarizes key findings of the international assessment: 

1. Ancillary Benefits – Based on an assessment conducted by the EC, other positive 

benefits from speed limiter legislation included an estimated reduction in fuel 

consumption of 3-11%, lower vehicle maintenance costs and reduced insurance 

premiums. 

2. Enforcement & Compliance – Many road transport officials noted that compliance 

and enforcement efforts were integral to ensure the effectiveness of the speed 

limiter policy. The lack of sufficient enforcement personnel to verify speed limiter 

compliance was identified as a problem in all participating jurisdictions. For 

example, Sweden only has 200 enforcement officers for all heavy vehicle 

compliance efforts. The number of dedicated officers was similarly low in the U.K. 

and Australia. 

Swedish police employ two strategies for speed limiter compliance: roadside 

inspections and heavy vehicle speed compliance campaigns. The later involves 

verifying the speed of trucks with radar guns and issuing fines for non-compliance if 

the vehicle is found to exceed its speed-limiter setting. 

The U.K. strategy for speed limiter compliance includes roadside inspections and 

annual roadworthiness tests. The later involves annual safety checks on eligible 

classes of vehicles and included ensuring the speed limiter and tachograph is in 

good working condition. 

Targeting enforcement to high-risk offenders seems to have been an effective 

compliance approach in Australia and the U.K., particularly with limited enforcement 

resources. For example, the South Australia Police Heavy Vehicle Enforcement 

Group uses a network of fixed data collection cameras and other intelligence 

gathering techniques to target interceptions on high-risk operators/drivers. The U.K. 

heavy vehicle enforcement officers use Automatic Number Plate Recognition 

(ANPR) Cameras to identify and target trucks with a violation history. There are 

some 20,000 ANPR cameras at fixed sites throughout the U.K. 

Appropriate testing equipment to verify speed limiter settings also presented 

challenges. Australian enforcement officers are able to verify compliance for most 

engine types by plugging into the engine control module (ECM) using a hand-held 

testing device. Swedish and U.K. officers test for compliance with a device that 

plugs into the analog tachograph. However, this device will soon become obsolete 

when the EU implements a new digital tachograph requirement15. 

3. Tampering – Tampering was identified as a significant problem in all three 

countries. Australian officials estimate a 10-30% tampering rate, but no official 

estimates were available for Sweden and the U.K. 

 

15 Under EC Directive 2006/22/EC, digital tachographs are an Hours of Service compliance requirement for all new EU

vehicles registered after May 2006. 

37
However, one data collection site in Sweden found that 40% of heavy trucks were 

traveling faster than their maximum allowable speed. Tampering methods included 

unauthorized changes to the ECM settings and adjusting the tire size or 

transmission gear ratios. Fines for non-compliant speed limiters range from 

approximately C$300 in Sweden to C$150 in one Australia state (South Australia) to 

C$2660 for a driver and C$13,000 for a company in another (New South Wales). 

In Australia, if a heavy vehicle is suspected to have a tampered speed limiter, 

officers will verify the ECM setting as well as the correct tire size and transmission 

gear ratio. The operator can be issued a fine and a defect notice requiring the 

speed limiter to be repaired and recertified. 

4. Road Safety Concerns – Issues with increased highway congestion and difficulty 

with access to on and off-ramps resulting from bunching of speed-limited trucks 

were also identified as concerns. The long distance required for one speed limited 

truck to overtake another (and the resulting traffic backlog) were challenges 

identified by officials in the U.K. and Sweden. This problem resulted in U.K officials 

restricting heavy trucks to the inside lane of motorways and Swedish officials in 

some counties restricting truck overtaking on some stretches of highway. 

In the U.K., the inside lane restriction may have addressed the heavy truck 

overtaking issue, but government officials acknowledge this may have amplified the 

problem of other traffic being able to easily access exit or merge onto motorways. 

5. National Consistency – Government officials and trucking stakeholders in Australia 

and Sweden stressed the importance of a consistent national approach to speed 

limiter compliance. However, regulations and policies proposed at the national level 

are not always adopted or applied consistently at the state, territory or county level. 

In Australia, states and territories develop and pass their own compliance and 

enforcement regulations, which has led to inconsistencies across the country. The 

state legislature of Queensland, for example, passed a regulation in 1999 specifying 

that heavy vehicles would be issued a fine and defect notice requiring recertification 

of the speed limiter if detected traveling at 115 kph or higher. The vehicle travel 

speed is used as evidence that the speed limiter is either defective or has been 

tampered with. 

The Australian National Three Strikes Policy and Chain of Responsibility (COR) 

provisions within the Compliance and Enforcement Bill are examples of attempts at 

designing national compliance and enforcement legislation to promote heavy 

vehicle speed compliance. However, neither has been implemented uniformly 

across all jurisdictions. The COR provisions provide increasingly severe penalties 

for speed limiter tampering and holds all parties in the transportation chain 

accountable for breaches in road transport laws. Australia continues to strive 

towards a nationally consistent approach to compliance. 

Swedish officials also noted the lack of consistency across counties in their 

approach to verifying and prosecuting for speed limiter non-compliance. 

38
3.6 TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ASSESSMENT

The technical considerations assessment, based on survey responses from truck and 

engine manufacturers, was conducted to investigate technical issues that should be 

considered in the context of a speed limiter requirement. These technical limitations of the 

speed limiting function of the ECM may influence the effectiveness of a jurisdiction’s 

enforcement efforts to ensure compliance. For example, there are potential limitations on 

the ability of enforcement personnel to uniformly read and obtain an accurate assessment 

of the speed limiter settings on many types of ECMs currently in use as well as variability 

between the maximum road speed setting and the true road speed. These central issues 

are explained in more detail in this section. 

As outlined in the previous section, the experience of other countries with speed limiter 

legislation in place for some time would suggest that these technical challenges, combined 

with tampering and non-compliance rates, are legitimate issues. 

Electronically limiting a vehicle’s top speed through the truck’s on-board computer has 

been a feature available on most heavy-duty trucks since the mid 1990s. It is one of many 

programmable features of the ECM to tailor the truck to specific customer needs and is 

standard equipment on most Class 8 trucks on the market today. It is also worth noting 

that unlike mass-produced light-duty vehicles coming off the assembly line, heavy-duty 

trucks are typically custom orders. The customer, prior to final assembly, may specify 

numerous configurations and options on a new heavy-duty truck. This “specing” could 

include the engine size, driveline components and truck body features. These 

specifications consider horsepower requirements, vehicle load ratings, other customer 

preferences as well as jurisdictional regulatory requirements. Depending on the anticipated 

highway cruise speed of the truck, the final engine type/size and gearing configuration is 

chosen so that the vehicle operates within an optimal, fuel-efficient RPM range. 

The speed limiter setting is dependant on an engine/vehicle interface and the setting itself 

does not control vehicle top speed; other variables are essential for the ECM to calculate 

and control top speed. The speed limiter (within the ECM) functions by receiving a speed 

input signal from the driveline (transmission output shaft). In order to properly assess that 

signal against the maximum road speed (speed limiter) setting, the ECM requires other 

input variables such as the tire rolling radius, rear axle gear ratio and transmission top gear 

ratio. These variables, selected by the customer during “specing”, are typically calibrated 

by the truck manufacturer or dealer and are essential for an accurate maximum road 

speed setting. 

The maximum road speed setting can only be accessed with the proper hardware (e.g. 

laptop), manufacturer software and ECM password. Verifying a setting involves plugging 

into the vehicle’s on-board diagnostic (OBDII) port usually located near the driver’s door 

under the dashboard or on the floor of the cab between the driver’s door and seat. The 

connection is typically with a laptop interface cable or wireless reader. 

In order to better understand some of the technical issues and considerations with respect 

to compliance, enforcement and tampering, a questionnaire was circulated to the Truck 

Manufacturers Association (TMA) and the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA). 

39
The responses from both associations were closely aligned and identified a number of 

concerns with respect to the practicality of a speed limiter requirement. 

The following summarizes key issues noted by TMA and EMA: 

1. Manufacturers believe that the maximum vehicle road speed setting is a customerconfigurable feature and requiring manufacturers to “lock-in”, or pre-program, a 

particular setting is unrealistic, unachievable and ignores the realities of the 

production of engines and vehicles for the global market. Engine manufacturers can 

not know the final vehicle configuration at the customer delivery stage, nor the 

jurisdiction in which the engines will operate, and therefore do not/cannot set the 

maximum road speed setting. 

2. A speed limiter is set or adjusted using manufacturer’s proprietary software and a 

password. Most large fleet owners have the ability, through their own shop facilities 

and service personnel, to set or change speed limiter settings. Many carriers 

typically set the speed limiter once with the software/password provided upon

delivery of new truck according to the company speed limit. Conceivably, the speed 

limiter setting could be adjusted from within the cab assuming the necessary 

hardware/software and password were available. However, most company drivers 

would not have access to the necessary equipment. TMA estimates equipment 

cost at $1,000-2,000 ($450 for software, connectors/hardware around $650-700). 

The ability to change speed limiter settings remotely via Global Positioning Systems 

(GPS) is currently unavailable–a relevant issue for trucks traveling between 

jurisdictions with and without speed limiter requirements in place. 

It should also be noted that smaller operators may not have the ability or resources 

to change speed limiter settings on their own and would need to rely on service 

facilities or dealers to make changes. Shop service fees or costs to purchase the 

necessary software and hardware would be the responsibility of the vehicle owner. 

3. From an enforcement perspective, there are technical challenges with respect to 

interfacing with all truck (ECM) makes and models on a uniform basis in order to 

access the speed limiter setting. Each engine manufacturer may have multiple 

hardware and software configurations, or in some cases multiple configurations for 

a particular engine model. In addition, engine manufacturers regularly update their 

proprietary engine software. These multiple requirements would suggest that 

anyone requiring full access (set, read or change) to the speed limiter setting would 

require up-to-date engine software for all engine models on the market. This may 

complicate the ability of enforcement personnel to maintain up-to-date equipment to 

access and verify the speed limiter settings in a uniform manner. EMA states that: 

“It is unlikely that a device could be designed and built to interface with all makes 

and models on a uniform basis”. However, based on the research conducted by the 

Ontario Ministry of Transportation into portable ECM readers currently on the 

market and information submitted from technology suppliers through their recent 

Request for Information (RFI), universal reading tools are available with limited 

access to just read the current speed limiter setting (versus full access to set, read 

or change). 

40
4. In order to verify the efficacy of the vehicle’s speed limiter setting, a reference to the 

original settings (e.g. tire size, gear ratio) would be necessary, possibly with a 

manufacturer-specific catalogue. A physical inspection of the vehicle (tire size, 

transmission plate) would also be necessary to ensure that the documented settings 

match the actual configuration of the vehicle.

5. Some trucks as new as the 2003 model year were built with mechanically controlled 

engines that do not include a vehicle speed limiting system. There are no known 

electronic speed limiters available for retrofit on these mechanically controlled 

engines. (Note: the recent survey by the Transportation Research Board suggests 

retrofit kits are available, and used on a small percentage of on-road trucks. 

However, it is unclear if these aftermarket retrofit kits are used on mechanically or 

electronically controlled engines). 

6. Protecting the vehicle ECM password is the primary defense against altering the 

speed limiter settings or other ECM settings (e.g. tire size, gear ratio). However, 

there are other (non-electronic) means by which the maximum road speed on a

speed-limited truck can be altered. The most conventional method seems to be via 

altering original vehicle driveline components, namely tire size and rear axle ratio. 

For example, changing out a rear axle to one with a higher gear ratio will increase 

the true vehicle top speed. Alterations to the tire or wheel size can also significantly 

affect the vehicle top speed. For example, just switching out to a set of taller tires 

on the same rims (e.g. 295/60R 22.5 to 315/80R 22.5) will result in a 68 mph (109.5 

kph) speed-limited truck achieving a true top speed of 80.5 mph (129.6 kph)–a 

20 kph increase. 

As stated earlier, password protection is the main defense against electronic tampering of 

the speed limiter settings in the ECM. Vehicle owners and/or service shop personnel 

typically keep vehicle-specific passwords on file. However, there is no guarantee against 

unauthorized use of passwords. It is also important to note that a truck crossing from one 

jurisdiction into another would not be able to change the setting unless the driver had the 

necessary equipment.

41
CHAPTER FOUR – CONCLUSIONS 

The central conclusions from the assessments and studies follow. 

Safety Implications of Speed Limiters 

The Safety Implications Study was conducted to determine whether speed limiters would 

reduce the risk and severity of crashes for trucks and assessed the safety impact of speed 

differentials and car-truck interactions in a speed-limited environment. Traffic simulations 

for three highway scenarios were conducted for the study as well as a case study of a 

Canadian freeway section. 

Based on the simulations conducted, it was concluded that truck speed limiters set at 105 

kph increases safety in the uncongested region of traffic flow for all geometric 

configurations, especially in the straight segment. As maximum speed is set at 110 kph the 

safety gains with the introduction of mandatory limiters are reduced for the uncongested 

region of traffic flow. The maximum safety gains were obtained when the maximum control 

speed was set at 90 kph for uncongested traffic volumes. 

Te results, however, do not appear to apply to all volumes and truck ratio levels. In fact, 

the safety risk increases when traffic volumes and truck ratios increase. For example, 

when traffic volume is set close to capacity (2000 vehicles per hour per lane) more vehicle 

interactions take place and this leads to a reduction in safety especially for those segments 

with increased merging and lane-change activity, such as, on and off ramp segments. This 

suggests that for higher traffic volumes and truck ratios, speed differentials and lack of 

space to adjust speed/lane can compromise safety. Given the typical high traffic volumes 

and percentages of trucks experienced on many freeways in Canada, this result suggests 

some safety challenges. It could nevertheless be argued that average speeds could 

decrease below 105 kph as volume approaches congestion, limiting the potential negative 

impacts of speed limiters. 

Preliminary results from the freeway case study, undertaken for the Eastbound Queen 

Elizabeth Way (QEW) in Toronto, concluded that the introduction of speed limiters set at 

105 kph yields statistically significant safety gains along the case study corridor as 

compared to the base case (no mandatory limiters) Although the modeling approach used 

could not be applied to assess the potential impact on rural undivided highways, a study 

review and analysis of provincial speed profiles found that mandatory speed limiters may 

present safety challenges resulting from an increase in passing maneuvers on two-lane 

roads. Further study of this situation is required before a more definitive statement can be 

made concerning the safety implications of truck speed limiters for this type of highway. 

Trade and Competitiveness Assessment

This assessment investigated the potential trade and competitiveness impact of mandating 

speed limiters under two scenarios: an Ontario/Quebec mandate and a national mandate. 

The general conclusion from the assessment is that there would likely be very few 

competitiveness issues. Currently, the majority of large North American fleets already use 

speed limiters—60% of Canadian and U.S.-based heavy truck fleets and even higher on a 

42
per-truck basis. Average speed limiter settings in both countries for large fleets are around 

105 kph. For those fleets, there would likely be no competitive impact of a speed limiter 

mandate. 

Concerns about a speed limiter mandate originate from North American smaller fleet 

operators and owner-operators, who typically don’t use speed limiters or have them set at 

higher speeds. These operators cite safety concerns and state that they would avoid 

operating in speed-limited jurisdictions. However, this argument could be mitigated if they 

chose to purchase and use the tools necessary to change speed limiter settings. 

Another issue identified was the effect speed limiters would have on driver recruitment and 

retention, thus limiting operators’ ability to move freight and causing loss of market share if 

they chose to run in speed-limited jurisdictions. Fleet managers, large and small, 

indicated, however, that drivers are more likely to consider other employment factors such 

as the overall pay package including mileage rate paid, monthly miles attained, quality of 

equipment and fringe benefits. 

Based on an Ontario/Quebec mandate scenario, the assessment concluded that a much 

higher portion of Atlantic Canada’s trucking industry (30% of heavy trucks) than Western 

Canada’s (10% or less of heavy trucks) could potentially be impacted. Atlantic Canada 

would be more heavily affected because many large fleets based in the region operate into 

the U.S., moving through Quebec and Ontario as part of their operations. These large 

fleets, however, are typically operating at 105 kph or less, and hence would not be 

affected. Additionally, the majority of U.S.-based fleets operating into Ontario and Quebec 

would be unaffected by the mandate as these fleets also already operate at or below 105 

kph. Owner-operators, as discussed previously, oppose the mandate due to safety 

concerns and on this basis alone, 80% of these operators, interviewed as part of the 

project survey, indicated that they would no longer haul into Quebec and Ontario. 

Based on a national mandate scenario, the assessment conclusions are similar to the 

previous scenario’s in that large U.S.-based and Canadian truck fleets would not be 

impacted by a speed limiter mandate as they are already operating at or below 105 kph. 

Owner-operators, however, voiced concerns over the mandate as many are long-haul 

drivers who operate on longer runs and are exposed to states with higher speed limits. 

Their primary opposition to mandated speed limiters related to safety concerns and 

increased car-truck interactions from limited passing ability and increased speed 

differentials

The assessment also included a cost analysis to determine the potential trade-off between 

productivity benefits and increased costs. Conclusions from this analysis indicate that 

increased fuel costs from operating at higher speeds than 105 kph are greater than any 

productivity gains. There is an overall cost savings of 2% when operating at 105 kph 

compared to operating at 113 kph and a 9.5% cost savings when compared to operating at 

121 kph. In total, the fuel savings from a national mandate are estimated at 228 million 

litres annually, which could represent an overall savings to the trucking sector in the order 

of $190 million to $200 million annually. 

43
One final conclusion relates to the impact of a speed limiter mandate on shippers, which 

would be minimal as most freight is already being moved by fleets speed limited at 105 

kph. 

Environmental Benefits Study

The Environmental Benefits study quantifies the anticipated annual diesel fuel savings and 

greenhouse gas reductions from a national speed limiter mandate. This study updates 

preliminary estimates provided in the 2006 Discussion Paper on Speed Limiters for Trucks 

Operating in Canada.

Conclusions from the study include an updated annual fuel savings estimate of 228.6 

million litres, 0.6% above the previously estimated total of 227.3 million litres. This 

represents 1.4% of the total diesel fuel consumed by road vehicles operating in Canada in 

2006. 

The annual GHG savings are now estimated at 0.64 megatonnes, compared to the 

previous estimate of 0.63 megatonnes. Ontario and Quebec combined account for 64% of 

the estimated national savings. 

The study also included provincial estimates of truck traffic above 105 kph, which would be 

impacted by a speed limiter mandate. Nationally, approximately 62% of truck traffic 

traveled at 105 kph or lower, 23% were in the 105-110 kph range and 15% at 110 kph or 

above. British Columbia and Manitoba represented the lowest proportion of truck traffic 

potentially impacted by a speed limiter requirement with only about 3% and 25% 

respectively of vehicles traveling above 105 kph. The Alberta (110 kph locations) and 

Ontario (100 kph locations) represented the highest proportion of truck traffic potentially 

impacted by the requirement with about 55% and 59% respectively. Most other locations 

would potentially see 35% to 50% of trucks impacted by a speed limiter requirement. 

Case Study 

A case study, involving two large Canadian carriers, was conducted to document the 

benefits and experience of speed limiter usage within the Canadian trucking industry. Both 

firms, representing the for hire and private trucking sectors, have integrated speed control 

policies into their operations for close to 20 years—specifically speed limiters since the mid 

1990s. They believe speed limiters have had a significant positive impact on safety, fuel 

savings, and other maintenance costs. 

Drivers interviewed did not believe that the speed control policies within their companies 

have created any significant operational or safety concerns and generally accepted the 

speed control policy and expressed satisfaction with their jobs. 

The case study also found that neither of the carrier fleets studied appear to have any 

market disadvantage compared to their competitors as a result of their speed control 

policies and in fact may have a market advantage associated with driver retention and 

driver job satisfaction. 

44
From a safety perspective, both fleets believed that lower speeds have resulted in an 

improved safety record. Based on the collision data reviewed, there was no evidence that

speed limiters are contributing to the occurrence of collisions. In fact, there were no rearend collisions attributed to operating under a speed control policy in which another vehicle 

hit one of their trucks at highway speed. 

International Assessment 

The International Assessment researched the experiences of three countries (Australia, 

Sweden and the U.K.) with speed limiter legislation in place. 

In all three countries, officials noted that compliance and enforcement efforts were integral 

to the effectiveness of the speed limiter policy. Roadside inspections, targeted 

enforcement to high-risk offenders, highway data collection camera networks, and annual 

inspections were used towards speed limiter compliance. However, the lack of sufficient 

enforcement personnel was noted as a consistent problem. 

Tampering was identified as a significant problem in all countries. Australian officials 

estimated a 10-30 % speed limiter tampering rate and data from Sweden suggested that 

40% of heavy trucks were exceeding their maximum allowable speed. Tampering 

methods included unauthorized changes to the ECM settings. Some operators also made 

adjustments to the tire size or transmission gear ratios to allow the true vehicle speed to 

exceed the speed limiter setting. 

Road safety concerns identified by officials and industry stakeholders included increased 

highway congestion and difficulty accessing on and off-ramps resulting from bunching of 

speed-limited trucks. In an effort to limit the impact of increased highway congestion from 

speed-limited trucks overtaking one another, U.K. officials restricted heavy vehicles to the 

inside lane of motorways. 

The importance of a consistent national approach to speed limiter compliance was 

stressed by a number of officials and stakeholders interviewed. Australian states and 

territories are provided flexibility with respect to legislative approaches towards compliance 

and enforcement. Similarly, the European Commission (EC) allows EU member states 

flexibility with specific regulatory provisions and implementation dates. However, the core 

legislative objectives (e.g. speed limiter set at 100 kph for all trucks over 12 tonnes) must 

be maintained. 

In the case of Australia of Sweden, regulations and policies proposed at the national level 

are not always adopted at the state, territorial or county level and this has led to 

inconsistencies in regulatory approaches toward enforcement and compliance. 

Technical Considerations Assessment 

The Technical Considerations Assessment summarized technical issues and limitations of 

electronic speed limiters with respect to compliance, enforcement, and tampering based 

on survey responses from truck and engine manufacturers. These issues centre on 

45
technical limitations of the speed limiting function of the ECM that may influence the 

effectiveness of a jurisdiction’s enforcement efforts to ensure compliance. 

The assessment concluded that the speed limiter setting itself does not control vehicle top 

speed; other vehicle variables such as the tire rolling radius, rear axle gear ratio and 

transmission top gear ratio can increase the maximum attainable truck speed. These 

variables, selected by the customer during “specing”, are typically calibrated by the truck 

manufacturer or dealer and are essential for an accurate maximum road speed setting. 

The maximum road speed setting can only be accessed with the proper hardware (e.g. 

laptop), manufacturer software and ECM password. Verifying a setting involves plugging 

into the vehicle’s on-board diagnostic (OBDII) port usually located near the driver’s door 

under the dashboard or on the floor of the cab between the driver’s door and seat. The 

connection is typically with a laptop interface cable or wireless reader. Most large fleet 

owners have the ability, through their own shop facilities and service personnel, to set or 

change speed limiter settings. Many carriers typically set the speed limiter once with the 

software/password provided upon delivery of new truck according to the company speed 

limit 

Manufacturers believe that the maximum vehicle road speed setting is a customerconfigurable feature and engine manufacturers can not know the final vehicle configuration 

at the customer delivery stage, nor the jurisdiction in which the engines will operate, and 

therefore do not/cannot set the maximum road speed setting. 

From an enforcement perspective, there are technical challenges with respect to 

interfacing with all truck (ECM) makes and models on a uniform basis in order to access 

the speed limiter setting. Each engine manufacturer may have multiple hardware and 

software configuration, or in some cases multiple configurations for a particular engine 

model. This may complicate the ability of enforcement personnel to access and verify the 

speed limiter settings in a uniform manner. 

Protecting the vehicle ECM password is the primary defense against altering the speed 

limiter settings or other ECM settings (e.g. tire size, gear ratio). Vehicle owners and/or 

service shop personnel typically keep vehicle-specific passwords on file. However, there 

is no guarantee against unauthorized use of passwords. Other (non-electronic) means by 

which the maximum road speed on a speed-limited truck can be changed include altering 

original vehicle driveline components, namely tire size and rear axle ratio. 

46