home | media info | archive | supplier guide | registration | jobfinder | events | about us | contact
|
Tracking system recovers kit worth £350,000
Stories of how tracking can help recover stolen goods are always popular with m.logistics readers, so we thought you'd appreciate one concerning a stolen JCB digger. It was taken from a construction site near Great Casterton, Leicestershire, and for a few days it appeared to be lost; but then a week later a signal from its Tracker vehicle tracking unit was picked up by police in Essex. With support from the helicopter unit they followed the silent signal to the Dartford River Crossing, and narrowed the source down to the back of a lorry on the QE2 Bridge. Even though it was rush hour, the bridge was closed while police stopped the lorry and arrested the driver. Once they checked the lorry, police discovered another stolen tractor and other items. Altogether they recovered equipment valued at £350,000. According to Sgt Colin Sheard from Essex Roads Policing Unit: 'This was a great result, involving excellent teamwork from officers from Essex Police's RPU and Air Support Unit, with co-operation of staff from Dartford River Crossing and members of the public.' He was in no doubt that if the Tracker system had not been in place, the equipment would soon have been on its way to the Continent. The Tracker system uses GSM, GPS and VHF technology, and is said to be 'jammer-proof'. The underlying VHF technology is in use in 30 countries, and to date is said to have been responsible for over 250,000 recoveries of stolen vehicles worth $5billion. É as tracking thwarts bogus insurance claim Vehicle tracking can also be called on to disprove claims alleging fault in accidents, and a nice instance of this has come to light in Exeter. It was alleged that one of the drivers of a firm of heating engineers company at Sidmouth had struck a third-party vehicle at speed on a country road, causing minor damage. Because the company had Navman Wireless tracking fitted in its vehicles, it was able to generate a report detailing the precise speed and location of the engineer involved at the time of the purported incident. This confirmed the engineer's claim that he had pulled over, giving way to the other driver, and had not been travelling at speed. When the other driver was confronted with the evidence, he backed down and the claim was dropped.
|