by MIKE BEAUDIN
Ontario farm vehicles with licence plates and weighing more than 4,500 kg (10,000 pounds) will face stiffer mechanical inspection standards this year.
The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) introduced new inspection procedures on Jan. 1 that require vehicles to undergo more rigorous testing.
Ministry spokesman Ajay Woozageer, in an email, said the MTO is providing a soft enforcement period of 12 months to allow mechanics and technicians who do the inspections to familiarize themselves with the new standard.
Ontario is the last province to fully adopt National Safety Code 11B (NSC 11B) which outlines 16 minimum standards for periodic mandatory vehicle inspections.
“Overall, the new version of NSC 11B is more precise and explicit as to what needs to be inspected and includes inspection items not previously covered, such as electronic stability control,” said Woozageer.
Woozageer said the new code, which addresses vehicle technologies not previously covered such as anti-lock brakes and airbags, would improve safety.
The 16 standards cover licensing, training programs for drivers, medical standards for drivers, hours of service, load security, maintenance standards, safety rating and trip reports.
The standards were put in place mostly to regulate the commercial trucking and bus industries but farm vehicles are not exempt.
Woozageer said the amended standard outlines which items can be visually inspected and which items require additional procedures. Inspections must be conducted by a certified mechanic/technician at a licensed station.
One of the biggest questions surrounding the inspections is when wheels need to be removed for brake inspection. If a truck meets the qualifications for a limited brake inspection and visible defects are found, only limited brake measurements are required. Removal will be necessary if the technician suspects a problem that requires a closer inspection.
NSC 11B requires the inspecting mechanic to record measurements, pad friction, material thickness and rotor thickness for disc brakes, and the brake shoe lining thickness and brake drum diameter for drum brakes.
The licensee must keep a record of all vehicles inspected together with the measurements and any other information required. Records showing a list of defects, recommended repairs and actual repairs carried out must be kept for one year from the date of inspection.
The records aren’t required to be submitted to the MTO.
Although vehicles must meet stricter standards, the inspection shouldn’t take much more time or cost much more than current inspections unless repairs are required, said Woozageer.
“Inspections to the new standard will create minor impacts on the process, while the additional time to undertake the inspection is minimal,” he said.
Representatives of the truck and bus industry were consulted on the changes, said Woozageer. Farmers were not consulted because they're not considered a primary transportation industry and make up such a small fraction of the trucks on the road. BF
Comments
As Premier Wynne wants to expand farm recipts and business and then puts a book full of demands on the Farmers/Business'. As soon as you pass 4,500 kg. Full Trucking rules kick in ,MTO on the main hwy. stop landscapers ,farmers,ect. and haul them off to an inspection site in blitzes. Very common to have fuel tanks dipped for coloured diesel with no reason . Learned last spring that if you have your pkp. licensed for 4,500 kg. or more to pull a trailer that even if you take it too Tim Horton's for coffee that you have to do and sign a pre-trip report . Everybody is all for safety but MTO seems to be going nuts on enforcement and they have also an OPP crew designated too check vehicles .Just before Christmas I seen a MTO in green stripe pkp. stop a For Escape on 401 pulling a 2 wheel trailer. I would support a yearly safety but we need some kind of exemption for hauling our own produce/livestock/supplies say within 100 km. of home as some US states do-kg kimball
Farmers don't deserve any kind of exemption "for hauling our own produce/livestock/supplies say within 100 km. of home" because of the horrifying way we abuse the exemptions we already have.
For example, one of the most-egregious examples of farmers abusing exemptions available only to us is farmers pulling B-train grain trailers behind farm tractors - these outfits:
(1) don't need an annual safety check or a daily written and signed report
(2) can operate on coloured fuel
(3) can operate on farm insurance rather than motor vehicle insurance
(4) don't need license plates
(5) don't need the operator to have regular MTO medicals
(6) don't require the operator to even have a drivers license
(7) are basically exempt from total weight and axle loading restrictions facing licensed vehicles
(8) aren't subject to any roadside safety inspections
(9) don't require the operator to follow any hours of service limitations which would be required by the operator of a similar motor vehicle.
In addition, the reason MTO seems "to be going nuts on enforcement" is because all-too-often these vehicles, especially those which like the sort of one-ton-trucks operated by landscapers, simply aren't safe and deserve to be inspected.
About the only exemption we might deserve is an exemption for having to pull wheels for an annual safety check on vehicles which travel the same amount in a year as some commercial vehicles travel in a week.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
oh dear ...here we go again ...another sore spot for Mr Thompson to rant about.
I'm sure many of the followers of this forum would like to hear some positives once in awhile
Stan Holmes a positive and constructive person
While the support Mr. Holmes has, for example, shown for supply management on this site would appear to him to be "positive", being positive about something which is, by defintion, net negative for jobs and economic activity, is a contradiction in terms and, therefore, not "positive" at all.
Or, to look at it in another way - what could ever be positive about something which is founded on double-standards and bad economic policies.
Finally, for any supply management supporter to define himself as a "positive" and "constructive" person, is a contradiction of the highest order.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON
Bullseye Stan.
Stan supports supply management which is, by definition, net-negative for jobs and economic activity as well as responsible for pitting farmers against each other - therefore it is impossible for anyone who supports supply management to be "positive".
The paradox is that people like Stan can be either supply management supporters or "positive", but not both - for Stan to believe he can be "positive" given the negativity he has strongly supported on this site, shows that he is simply trying to have it both ways, and that definitional contradiction should strike a nerve with anyone on this site who has an IQ bigger than his/her shoe size.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Seems to me the original post and comment was about MTO regs for farm vehicles. Why is it that the BF comments are allowed to go way off topic. Apparently, Mr. Thompson thinks almost every issue including MTO regs is somehow related to SM.
Promoting supply management and promoting exemptions for farmers on the road, exposes exactly the same set of double-standards - the belief that the "rules" which apply to others shouldn't apply to us.
In addition, Mr. Holmes "jumped" on me with his posting which had absolutely-nothing to do with the MTO and everything to do with taking personal umbrage with me - I was simply responding to his personal attack on me by pointing out how and why he was "the pot calling the kettle black".
If Mr. Holmes hadn't "shot from the lip" and exposed his own double standards by doing so, I never would have responded accordingly.
It is both ironic and sad to see that the anonymous rabble seems to think there is nothing wrong when a known supply management supporter goes "off-topic" in order to engage in an unwarranted personal attack, but God-forbid that a known supply management opponent should defend himself from that unwarranted personal attack by exposing the double-standards of his attacker.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Oh dear Mr Thompson . I should be the one who feels personally attacked when you seem to think that "my IQ equals my shoe size "...very immature
also the rules of "selling illegal raw milk" and "not paying fines" seem to be overlooked and that you quote US prices while cross border shopping ( meats/dairy and Vegetables) and then say that it SM that has caused our rural problems.
do you have a positive agricultural topic that the followers of this forum can start a thread and learn something?
Stan Holmes
Let get some popcorn !!
As the owner and operator of a for hire commercial vehicle I will say that I have to agree with Mr Thompson on this one.
except the articule is about trucks not tractors and wagons.
When farmers can, and do, use farm tractors to haul bigger loads in converted B-train trailers than what licensed trucks would be allowed to haul in the identical trailer, the above anonymous argument becomes irrelevant, obtuse and even pedantic.
The maximum gross vehicle weight for licensed vehicles in Ontario is 63.5 metric tonnes - yet I regularly see farm tractors and B-train trailers coming over local scales at well-over 70 tonnes, and in some cases at even over 80 tonnes. At that weight, these rigs are, as consumer advocate Ralph Nader once said about a certain model of car - "Unsafe at any speed".
It's only a matter of time before we have a Lac Megantic style catastrophe with one (or even more) of these behemoths - government response in the form of substantial restrictions on over-weight farm vehicles, especially those hauling grain, will be merciless, and rightly-so.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The difference between tractors and trucks would maybe be acceptable if the tractos were running at 20 mph and below. Or running farm to farm only . Many tractors today are running over the slow sign limit for speed which negates the exception to the rule . I am told the combinations that are being complained about are rigs that are running with brakes so the safety factor is being taken seriously by those owners and cudos to them for that .
The bigger problem is that Ag is so full of exceptions and exemptions . Agriculture and Ag groups do a poor job of enforcing of their own . It is really seen when you see the amount of vehicles other than pick ups that are on the road with farm plates . Quite sad to see that agriculture representatives do not want to some how have rules enforced that are meant for farmers , allow abuse by their own . I remember seeing a director for a major farm org showing up to an event in a family vehicle with farm plates .
Safety is safety and should not be compromised . As farmers we have done this to our selves .
Post new comment