Why tampering with your truck speed limiter will risk your O-licence

Companies that alter their HGV speed limiters so that vehicles can travel at faster speeds should expect their O-licences to be placed in jeopardy, according to a specialist road transport solicitor.

The issue recently came to light at a public inquiry (PI) in Scotland, during which traffic commissioner (TC) Claire Gilmore heard how a haulage firm had tampered with its limiter devices.

M&M Kerr admitted that one of its mechanics had been told software purchased to carry out diagnostic testing on fleet vehicles could also be used to adjust the speed limiters. The mechanic informed the director of the firm.

Michael Kerr told the TC that Covid, as well as Brexit, had had a huge impact on his business and it seems that the temptation to alter the speeds of his trucks had become too great.

“The motivation was to allow the vehicles to get to their destination more quickly,” the PI heard. “There was nothing open, no facilities for drivers due to Covid, and it was really intended to help the drivers get to Dover or Calais a little bit more quickly.”

Kerr also said that, because none of the vehicles were set to go above 60mph, he did not consider it a risk to road safety. He did, however, accept that it had affected fair competition, but given the delays caused by Brexit and the pandemic, he thought the advantage was minimised.

Kerr’s reasoning might be sympathised with by some lorry drivers, who regularly endure motorists weaving past them as they travel at 56mph, and consider their hi-tech, modern, responsive HGVs to be just as safe as any car.

But as Patrick Boyers, solicitor at JMW Solicitors, points out, the fair competition aspect of this case should not be overlooked.

“Commercial vehicle speed limiters are set at 56mph [90kph] due to European regulations that have been enacted under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations,” he says.

“In the M&M Kerr case, much of the discussion by the TC in her decision concerned the road safety implications of a company or director deliberately altering a speed limiter but – and perhaps to a greater degree – the perspective of M&M Kerr gaining a competitive advantage over other compliant hauliers by being able to travel further in the same time.”

However, this is not to minimise the road safety aspect of M&M Kerr’s actions. In her decision, TC Gilmore said she could accept “in general terms” that there may be less of a risk posed by a vehicle that has had its speed limiter altered, but remains limited to around the maximum road speed limit, than by one set at a much higher speed.

But she added: “However, I am not persuaded that the risk posed by Mr Kerr’s vehicles can be classed as minor.

“The government guidance I was referred to makes it clear that speed limiters on vehicles over 3.5 tonnes are designed to reduce accidents.

“The guidance states that having a speed limiter fitted may prevent the vehicle in question travelling at the maximum speed limit. An enforced reduction of maximum vehicle speed to a speed lower than the road speed limit, then, is obviously envisaged and clearly desirable in regard to road safety.”

It’s a point with which Boyers agrees: “Legal limits for matters such as speed, drivers’ hours or weight are based on research and consultation and other factors, as an appropriate limit to ensure road safety and that everyone plays to the same set of rules,” he says.

“In M&M Kerr’s case, the TC considered the act of deliberately altering the speed limiters on vehicles to be an act of dishonesty that affected road safety and, as was admitted by the operator, was undertaken to give it a competitive advantage.

“When an act of dishonesty features in a matter before the TC, revocation of the O-licence often follows as the TC loses trust in that operator.”

It’s that loss of trust that ultimately sealed the fate of M&M Kerr’s licence. The TC accepted the decision to tamper with the limiters was more about helping the drivers out and that it was opportunistic, rather than premeditated.

But she concluded: “Mr Kerr’s actions in altering his vehicles’ speed limiters have undoubtedly afforded him a significant commercial advantage over other honest hauliers.

“That has materially impacted fair competition over a lengthy period. To have done that, particularly during such challenging times, amounts to a grave breach of trust.

“Other operators need to understand that if they choose to act similarly, then they are likely to lose their O-licence.”

The haulier has since been given an interim licence while the TC considers full authorisation.

- This article was first published in the 29 February issue of Commercial Motor.