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 
Include tacho evidence
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN ISSUE HAS arisen that causes our group great concern and that is, should tachograph evidence be considered in proving an HGV driver guilty or innocent of a speeding offence?
Just recently an HGV driver was driving along the A420 from Oxford to Swindon and was alleged to have been doing 49mph in a 40mph zone.
His summons arrived and he was prepared to go to court because his tachograph showed well below the 40mph at the time of the alleged offence. He was told by the police that his tachograph could not be used as evidence.
However,he insisted that he would go to court and show the magistrate his evidence.The day before he was due to appear the police, through the Crown Prosecution Service, dropped the charge. Why?
Could it possibly be that there was a fault with the speed camera and therefore only HGV drivers could make a valid challenge to the charge? Or could it he that the police just prosecute for the sake of it, and in most cases receive money for the speeding offence?
Besides these issues, what on earth is the point of a tachograph unless it can work for both sides where an offence may have been committed?
Jack Crossfield Drivers Action Movement Manchester