TORONTO — A possible precedent-setting case on whether the MTO should incur responsibility if a truck engine’s computer is damaged during a speed limiter compliance check is set for later this month.

As owner-op Lee Ingratta prepares to defend an appeal by MTO, an increasing number of truckers continue to allege improper readings, reader incompatibility with certain engine models, and ECM malfunctions after undergoing speed setting tests at weigh scales.

(Ingratta, as you may have previously read here, is the trucker who a traffic court judge ruled did not in fact refuse a speed limiter check by demanding the MTO officer first sign a waiver assuming responsibility in the event of damages to the engine).

Meantime, two more limiter law-busting anecdotes come by way of Mark Richardson, a consultant with Canadian Safety Compliance. He tells Today’s Trucking he’s one of a growing list of people who have fought (and beat) speed limiter charges.

He says one of his clients, Michael Brothers Excavation in North York, Ont., was charged last fall with having engine speed higher than the allowed maximum of 105 km/h, although the owners insisted it was properly adjusted by a Mack dealer.

Richardson allows that carriers can sometimes think their governor is compliant, but when other work is done to the ECM or battery, the speed can revert back to the OEM setting.

"A lot of carriers don’t know that," he says. But that wasn’t the case here as the paperwork "was signed off and stamped" by a Mack dealer just weeks before.

On site, the dump truck driver complained to the officer, but to no avail. Offers to have the dealer’s documents faxed to the MTO detachment were rebuffed.

Later in court, Richardson presented the original paperwork to the Crown in a pre-trial discussion. According to the former SLH driver and insurance exec, the MTO officer interjected and demanded a trial.

"I said to him, ‘well, that’s not your call,’" Richardson says.
With the prosecutor present, he asked the officer a series of questions about the Ez-Tap tool MTO uses to gauge compliance.

The exchange, according to Richardson, went something like this:

MR: We’ve heard from drivers, and it’s been noted in Today’s Trucking magazine (nice touch—ed) that the electronic reader can give false readings or give off a static charge that can blow the computer.

MTO: I don’t know anything about that.

MR: Is the reader checked for accuracy and calibration like your scales or a radar gun?

MTO: No

MR: Can you guarantee this device is accurate?

MTO: No

MR: Computers carry viruses. Can you guarantee this reader can’t transmit a virus after being plugged in from truck to truck?

MTO: No

"So, I say to him," Richardson recalls. "You can’t guarantee it doesn’t have a virus. You can’t guarantee it’s accurate. So how can you say it’s properly reading our ECM?"

At this point, Richardson claims, the Crown asked to see the Mack dealer’s paperwork again. "After a few seconds, he cancels the trial and withdraws the charges."

In a second case, a North Bay-area client who also insisted the ECM was governed but no longer had the dealer’s receipt as proof, asked for Richardson’s help. "I proved it the old fashioned way," he explains. "With math."

Richardson used the data on the drive gear ratio, maximum rpm output, tire size, and rear differential "to prove it can only do 62 mph.

"When all the parameters are set (to certain specifications) it’s impossible to overrun your engine. It’s pretty simple."

The Crown, who Richardson says was "luckily good at math," withdrew that ticket too. "That’s how we beat that one."

(The MTO doesn’t comment on such cases).

Afterwards, Richardson says the officer sidled up to him and conceded the match. "’Nice one, he said.’"

Indeed. Though, somehow we doubt the MTO will be so congratulatory in future cases.