1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196 
TC slams 'pathetic excuse' for using a tad() fiddling device
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN OPERATOR'S FUTURE hangs in the balance after he was found driving a vehicle fitted with a device designed to fiddle the tachograph which also made the speed limiter ineffective.
Brian Smith, trading as RNS of Newton Stewart, had been called before ScottishTraffic Commissioner Joan Aitken at a Dumfries disciplinary inquiry. He holds a licence for two vehicles and two trailers.
Traffic examiner Alistair McCormack said Smith had been convicted at Stirling Sheriff's Court of having a defective speed limiter and a tampering device lilted to a tachograph. Smith, who was driving the vehicle, was fined £100 for each offence.
Traffic examiner Alexander Davidson told the inquiry that tests showed the device enabled the vehicle to be driven when the tachograph was recording rest. It would also have had the effect of disabling the speed limiter.
He accepted that there were no signs on the tachograph chart that Smith was using it the day that the device had been found, but added that the device's use was difficult to establish. It was apparent on every tachograph chart that there had been sustained excessive speeds of up to 100km/h, Davidson added.
Smith maintained that he had been unaware of the interrupter device but accepted that he had driven a vehicle for four weeks when he knew the speed limiter was defective.
Asked why, he replied that it was sometimes difficult to get vehicles booked in for repair because of delivery times. The TC described this defence as a -pathetic excuse" which lacked credibility.
Asked how the tachograph interference device got there, Smith replied:"I honestly don't know." Indicating that she would announce her decision in writing, the TC warned that this was a serious case and she would be taking some action against the licence. Joan Mien Scollish TC