On the day of the tragic accident with the Stint on September 20, 2018, an adjustment was made to the vehicle’s user manual. This became clear on Wednesday during the second day of the trial surrounding the Stint. The manual, which originally referred to the Machinery Directive and so-called ISO standards, was amended on the same day, with the sentence about the Machinery Directive being removed. The amended version of the manual was then sent to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (ILT). The suspicion is that this was done deliberately.
A machinery directive is a European law with requirements that machines intended for the European market must meet. After the accident, the National Road Transport Agency (RDW) ruled that the Stint did not comply with the machine directive.
Peter Noorlander, the technical man behind the Stint, stated in the Den Bosch court: “I did that. We were in a takeover process with a Danish company, and from there we looked at the regulations surrounding the Stint. We were then reminded of the mention of the Machinery Directive in the manual.” Stint director Edwin Renzen added that the request to remove the sentence was already on a list of actions that needed to be carried out.
The judge wondered why it was decided to remove that sentence exactly on the day of the accident, at the end of the afternoon. Noorlander replied: “I don’t remember that. I also don’t remember that we decided to send the statement without that sentence.”
“The sentence about the Machinery Directive had no added value for us.”
The judge emphasized that the Stint always had that reference to the Machinery Directive between 2011 and 2018. However, after the accident, that sentence suddenly disappeared. “Did you tell the ministry that another version existed?” the judge asked. Noorlander replied: “What was in front of it was incorrect. That’s why it was changed.”
The judge further asked whether the idea was to send the wrong information to the ministry and the ILT. Renzen replied: “No, I don’t remember that. We were asked for more information, including the user manual. The sentence about the Machinery Directive had no added value for us.”
“We were still looking for what exactly the Stint was.”
Although Noorlander and Renzen emphasized that they had no wrong intentions, it was still questioned whether the removal of the sentence about the Machinery Directive was an attempt to hide something. Noorlander emphasized: “There are 3,000 manuals in circulation. It seems very illogical to me that I changed them with the intention of covering something up.”
The judge also asked why the Machinery Directive was included in the manual at all. Noorlander explained: “We thought it was worth mentioning that we looked at additional safety requirements. It was a time when it was still questionable whether the Stint was a special moped or a machine.” Renzen added: “We were still looking for what exactly the Stint was.”
The case is receiving increasing attention as allegations of forgery are raised. The lawsuit states that the Stint manuals between 2011 and 2018 incorrectly referred to the Machinery Directive, the EMC Directive and ISO standards.
The judge emphasized that this may have been misleading. Noorlander defended himself: “We never had the intention to give the appearance that we complied with the Machinery Directive.”
Here you can read all the stories about the accident with the Stint in Oss.