BGD Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 To help Carol & Mike (Carol was the original poster on this thread), may I repeat here mine and then Brian's posts from the "speed limits" thread that is currently running over in Motorhome Matters forum, just in case people don't poke their heads around that forum door from time to time:- .......................................................................................... Okay - this may help clear some of the mud from the waters. Through a Police contact back in the UK I've now managed to get hold of the exact wording of Section 3 (2) of the Road Vehicle (Construction & Use) regulations 1986 that I was talking about in my previous posts. This is the definitive legal definition of "unladen weight" for the purposes of those, and all subsequent road and traffic regulations, including speed limits which are unladen-weight-dependent: "UNLADEN WEIGHT The weight of a vehicle or trailer inclusive of the body and all parts (the heavier being taken where alternative bodies or parts are used) which are necessary to or ordinarily used with the vehicle or trailer when working on a road, but exclusive of the weight of water, fuel or accumulators used for the purpose of the supply of power for the propulsion of the vehicle or, as the case may be, of any vehicle by which the trailer is drawn, and of loose tools and loose equipment." My contact agrees with my surmise that this legal "unladen weight" definition means in practice for us motorhomers: the actual weight of your individual vehicle, including all welded-on or bolted-on or screwed on parts and accessories, but excluding all loose items and all fresh/waste/black water (except that in the vehicles own cooling system); and also excluding any deisel/petrol. This may not help anyone at the side of the road trying to argue with Plod that their individual unladen weight is below the magic 3050kgs; but it may help people who want to establish their own motorhomes legally defined Unladen Weight at a weigbridge. ................................................................... From Brian Kirby: Excellent Bruce, thanks. Now all we have to work out is how to get the van to a weighbridge with no fuel on board! Gets easier by the minute, don't it? For anyone really, really, wanting to bring this to the best figure, fill the fuel tank and then immediately go to the weighbridge. From the ticket weight, deduct the weight of a full tank at 0.85Kg per litre, for diesel, less a few litres consumed en route. You do all know how many litres your fuel tanks hold, and your approximate mileage per litre, don't you? ................................................................................... So, off to the weighbridge Carol with your Motorhome, having first removed from it anything not bolted or screwed down, and having completely drained your freshwater, greywater and blackwater; and having filled with fuel as per Brian's post. Then you'll have the definitive, legal "Unladen Weight" number, exactly as per the definition within the Road Traffic Act that Mike's been charged with breaching. If your Motorhome "Unladen Weight" weighbridge ticket, thus measured, is under 3050kgs, Mike's legally not guilty; he wasn't breaking the law as the limit for him on that stretch was 60mph, and he wasn't exceeding that speed.:-D If it's above 3050kgs, then he was breaking the law, as he should not have been exceeding 50mph at that vehicle unladen weight.........how good at you at baking cakes with files inside? :'( I rest my case M'lud. (That'll be the usual case of Bailey's to the usual address :D ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Mike Chapman - 2008-12-04 12:59 PM davenewell@home - 2008-12-03 6:03 AM I wouldn't wait for it to go to court, I'd make that weighbridge visit a priority even if only to put your own mind at rest. Manufacturers brochure figures are notoriously inaccurate and if your unladen weight is over the 3050KG mark then the lower speed limit applies. Why wait till the court summons to find out? D. Or why not buy one of the Reich Wheel Weighers as stocked by Dave Newell leisure services and make guessing at axle weights a thing of the past. Come on Dave another sales opportunity lost? (lol) (lol) (lol) Regards, Mike. Cheers Mike, I try not to be too obvious about selling on here, if anyone is interested in checking out my website for details they can always click on the link to my website. Mostly I come on here to try and help others and learn a bit myself. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 BUT!!!!!! If you do the above and virtually empty your 'van and go to a weighbridge and get it weighed and it is over the 3050kg but you know that if you deduct the fuel it will be below this how the heck to you prove that to PC plod! After all the weighbridge ticket will show the weight OVER the 3050kg limit ..... 8-) Or am I missing something? *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Mel - No, you haven't missed anything m'dear. If that was the situation, then you'd have to syphon all your fuel out, push the van back onto the weighbridge for a second ticket, then pour all th fuel back in. Madness. But that's the law on how you get to "Unladen Weight". But to be honest, if you were that close to the 3050kgs, would it be worth it?? ('Cos petrol tastes really yuck yuck yuck when you get some in your mouth whilst trying to get a syphon started......dunno what diesel tastes like, but it ain't gonna be a lot better) :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 I agree, Mel is not missing anything, except possibly the wisdom of driving a vehicle that is borderline below 3050Kg when weighed, as though it was comfortably below 3050Kg. Much of the structure of a motorhome will absorb moisture. Mainly the wooden elements, but also furnishings and upholstery. Its weight is, therefore, liable to vary throughout the year, due to changes in its moisture content. That is why the ULW, if actually stated in the brochure, will almost invariably (by which I mean I have never seen one without) carry a caveat about variation within a range of +/- 5% (or similar). If you add 5% to the claimed ULW for your van, and that figure alone (i.e not including the weights of fixed accessories or options) exceeds 3050Kg, you are being a bit rash if you intend driving it as though it were demonstrably under that critical weight!If in doubt (which is to say if not weighed), or if weighed and borderline, assume the van is over 3050Kg and drive accordingly. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twooks Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 :D :D :D or get a little van :D :D :D B-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usinmyknaus Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 A concern I have had with this thread from its inception was the (wholly unacceptable in my view) suggestion from the police that the Accused should challenge the police officer's view in court i.e prove his own innocence. Surely despite this Government's efforts to the contrary, it is still for the police to establish Mike's guilt beyond reasonable doubt? So how exactly, do the police intend to establish such guilt? Specifically, unless they physically took charge of the vehicle immediately after the alleged offence, stripped out all non-applicable items to leave just those which are defined in law to be within the narrow confines of the legal definition on which the maximum permitted speed is based and had the test weight verified on officially recognised and appropriately calibrated and certified accurate scales, under the supervision of an appropriately qualified person, how, precisely will the reporting police officer support his case to a sufficient level of proof to satisfy the CPS, let alone the court? Even if the police where to seize the vehicle now and perform the test, that is the position now, not when the alleged offence took place so would that be admissable evidence? I find that hard to believe. Methinks the police are hoping that like most motorists Mike will roll over and plead guilty to something of which he believes he is innocent. A quick win for police statistics, another nail in the coffin of justice for honest folk who cannot reach for the legal aid machinery. Carol/Mike - have you checked all your various insurance policies, club & union memberships to see if you have free access to legal advice? Or tried the local CAB - some offer a free 30 minutes with a local solicitor? It would be at least worth getting a view on the rules of evidence in this situation and the extent to which you can ask the police to disclose their evidence to your legal representative/you in advance of the case coming to court. I hope you win this one - I think it stinks somewhat and is a good example of why the police are losing the support of many honest citizens. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Usinmyknaus - 2008-12-09 1:41 PM A concern I have had with this thread from its inception was the (wholly unacceptable in my view) suggestion from the police that the Accused should challenge the police officer's view in court i.e prove his own innocence. Surely despite this Government's efforts to the contrary, it is still for the police to establish Mike's guilt beyond reasonable doubt? So how exactly, do the police intend to establish such guilt? Specifically, unless they physically took charge of the vehicle immediately after the alleged offence, stripped out all non-applicable items to leave just those which are defined in law to be within the narrow confines of the legal definition on which the maximum permitted speed is based and had the test weight verified on officially recognised and appropriately calibrated and certified accurate scales, under the supervision of an appropriately qualified person, how, precisely will the reporting police officer support his case to a sufficient level of proof to satisfy the CPS, let alone the court? Even if the police where to seize the vehicle now and perform the test, that is the position now, not when the alleged offence took place so would that be admissable evidence? I find that hard to believe. Methinks the police are hoping that like most motorists Mike will roll over and plead guilty to something of which he believes he is innocent. A quick win for police statistics, another nail in the coffin of justice for honest folk who cannot reach for the legal aid machinery. Carol/Mike - have you checked all your various insurance policies, club & union memberships to see if you have free access to legal advice? Or tried the local CAB - some offer a free 30 minutes with a local solicitor? It would be at least worth getting a view on the rules of evidence in this situation and the extent to which you can ask the police to disclose their evidence to your legal representative/you in advance of the case coming to court. I hope you win this one - I think it stinks somewhat and is a good example of why the police are losing the support of many honest citizens. Bob I hope you win this one - I think it stinks somewhat and is a good example of why the police are losing the support of many honest citizens. My way of thinking is that the police force are now a tool of this hateful government, at one time I would have gone to the aid of a copper in distress, not anymore, not after some of the things I have seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duffers Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Is it not simply a question of 'fine print'? and the motorhome limits falling within the little known fine print of the RTAs? I agree that politicisation of the police and proliferation of intrusive laws are creating a problem between 'them' & 'us', whoever them and us may be of course; but I think it is a gross exaggeration to think that applies in this case. It's not a question of proving innocence as opposed to being proven guilty, more a simple matter of mistaken identity. ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Hi Bob - I think you are right, but being issued with a ticket by a Police Officer at any time is in essence simply in law a notification to you of a suspicion by that Police Officer that s/he has reason to believe that an offence may have been committed. It is of course NOT proof that any such offence has been committed. But in response, you have two choices: Accept the allegation in the ticket, and pay the fine (in essence an acceptance of guilt over the allegation by the Police Officer). Or opt to have the case heard by a court. If you opt for this route, then as you say, it is indeed for the Prosecution to convince the court, beyond reasonable doubt, the the Police Officers suspicion was correct. As you say, it is not for you to have to prove your innocence. Quite often a court will decide after hearing the prosecution case, and even before hearing anything from the defendant, that in their view there in no case to answer....in other words, even before hearing anything from the defence to weaken the prosecutions case, the judge/magistrates already believe that the prosecution has fallen short of the "beyond reasonable doubt" test. However, once the Prosecution has put their case, and you have your opportunity to cross-examine any of their witnesses; you then, in law, have the opportunity to bring to the courts attention any evidence that you may wish to, in order to show that the police Officers suspicion was not correctin the circumstances....weighbridge tickets/brochures etc. It is then for the court to decide, on the evidence presented by the Prosecution (sidenote: it's now the CPS who prosecute in any criminal case, not the Police), whether or not they have presented sufficient evidence that, despite anything the defendant or defense shows to the contrary, that they believe beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged breach of law was indeed committed. Personally, I have no problem with Police Officers having the power (and responsibility) to allege that an offence was committed, so long as the separate courts system exists to test on every occasion that the defendant so wishes, whether that allegation is true beyond reasonable doubt. Legal remedies also exist, in both English Civil and Criminal Law, where any person can show that (for example) a Police Officer exceeded his/her powers, or acted unreasonably or vexatiously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 A long drop, accompanied by a good old fashioned neck stretch will soon modify reckless speeding and such like behaviour! *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mco Posted December 9, 2008 Author Share Posted December 9, 2008 Oooh Judge you are awful. Are you suggesting we neck the nice policeman ? I'm on a computer in an internet cafe at the moment will later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usinmyknaus Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Hi Bruce. I wonder if this situation may indicate a lack of training or knowledge on the part of the police officer concerned. If the officer has evidence from an approved speed check device that a posted speed limit has been exceeded, I would expect that to be sufficient evidence for a court. Similarly if the vehicle was obviously an HGV exceeding the lower limit for that class of vehicle, again I could see the evidence from the speed check device, plus the registration and weight plate information supporting the police's case. My concern here is that there has been supposition by the reporting officer that Mike's vehicle exceeded, at the time the alleged offence was committed a very specific, technical weight which, in some circumstances could give rise to a breach of the speed limit for that class of road. I contend that in the absence of evidence that the vehicle exceeded the permitted weight at that time the officer cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed. He may be simply relying on the plated max weight of 3500 Kgs but that, as I said earlier would be supposition in relation to the unladen weight/Miro or whatever. If Mike produced the manufacturer's brochure which say, stated the weight was 2763Kgs, how could the police contest it? If Mike was to now take the vehicle and have it weighed in a condition he considers meets the law one simply gets into a circular argument as to whether that was the condition which would have applied at the time of the alleged offence. The CPS could say he had removed too many items, but Mike could truthfully say no, those empty screw holes with blanking plugs were in the wall at the time of the alleged offence, and so on. I am not claiming any special knowledge here but as I could easily find myself in Mike's (invidious) position I would really like to know whether the police could make this stick, despite his innocence. From what I have heard of the incident I find it hard to believe the police have enough evidence to secure a conviction in court. Surely Mike has nothing to prove, the police have everything to prove? Developing the analogy. It seems the police officer stopped Mike, in effect, because the vehicle looked to him like it might exceed 3050Kgs unladen weight. If he had stopped Mike and reported him as overweight because the vehicle "looked like it was over 3500kgs" but he did not verify the accusation with a weighbridge check, would a court convict? I would hope not. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Or maybe the officer doesn't know the differance between limits for a van and motorhome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Bob - Yes, I think I'd already said that, in my post above..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duffers Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 BGD - 2008-12-09 8:49 PM Bob - Yes, I think I'd already said that, in my post above..... not really, everyone seems to be getting hung up on the weight classification to the exclusion of the crucial fact that the vehicle is a motorhome once that is established is the time to argue weights, because the weight of the vehicle is irrelevant until that point has been accepted. ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 duffers - 2008-12-09 9:30 PM BGD - 2008-12-09 8:49 PM Bob - Yes, I think I'd already said that, in my post above..... not really, everyone seems to be getting hung up on the weight classification to the exclusion of the crucial fact that the vehicle is a motorhome once that is established is the time to argue weights, because the weight of the vehicle is irrelevant until that point has been accepted. ray Umm...it's a motorcaravan. I'd thought that'd been established beyond reasonable doubt, and was thus not an issue of contention. I'm not sure how one could argue that it's not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 I am curious as to how this case will end up? a private individual has no chance against the police, anyone with half a brain will know that to engage a solicitor is going to cost mega bucks with no guarantee of winning, might be better to accept a fine and put it down to experience and watch your speed in the future. I am not a speeder or reckless driver, my driving license is my living and in view of the proliferation of speed and traffic light camera's in my area the best thing I ever bought was a Fuzion speed camera detector which alerts me to hidden camera's, because that is what they are 'hidden' money traps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keithl Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Mike, If you're in the AA or RAC then seek legal advice from them, after all that's part of what you're paying your subscription for. The CCC or CC may also be able to help. After all you're probably not the first person to be accused of speeding in a MH. Keith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 MCO, have you weighed the 'van in unladen trim yet to setablish your position? If so what was the weight? D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duffers Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 There have been several instances of this being reported on different forums over the years. In each case that I am aware of it all comes down to producing: 1.relevant RTA which quotes motorcaravans separately [highway code and other 'short versions' don't do this] 2.relevant V5 document which states motorcaravan and 'class' ie weight magistrates say thank you and goodbye the problem comes because the 'short' form of the RTA is the one that is most readily available and doesn't specify motorcaravans KISS ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 duffers - 2008-12-10 9:30 AM There have been several instances of this being reported on different forums over the years. In each case that I am aware of it all comes down to producing: 1.relevant RTA which quotes motorcaravans separately [highway code and other 'short versions' don't do this] 2.relevant V5 document which states motorcaravan and 'class' ie weight magistrates say thank you and goodbye the problem comes because the 'short' form of the RTA is the one that is most readily available and doesn't specify motorcaravans KISS ray KISS I agree. Unfortunately the relevant weight, the unladen weight, is not stated on the V5C. Where now, for the KISS principle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duffers Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 oops :$ my excuse is that as I don't have a 'van at the moment I don't have a V5 to check - I always thought the weight class was shown still think - especially based on previous reports of this - that the biggest problem is a lack of knowledge / publicity over the fine detail of the RTA, ie that motorcaravans exist as a separate specification in the Act, even though it is rarely quoted in full. [except in Devon & Cornwall Constabulary website - but perhaps they get see more motorcaravans than other areas ] ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordThornber Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Apologies for this being off the weight thread, more on what Bob quite rightly refers to as having to prove your own innocence. My nephew was pulled over in the early hours of the morning for no reason. He was breathylised and was under the limit. His vehicle was checked and had no faults. At no point was my nephew rude or disrespectful to the Officer. So the Officer asks my nephew to turn his wheel to full lock to check his tyres, he does this and the Officer wiped, (yes wiped), his finger across the front tyres and promptly gives him a ticket for bald tyres. My nephew protests at this, after all it's pitch black, the officer uses no instrument of any sort and refuses my nephews offer of a tread guage, (he's a qualified mechanic). Result - court appearance, time off work totalling 3 days seeing solicitors and a bag of worry thinking he might get x number of points even though he know full well the tyres are within the legal limit. The Officer in question obviously "had it in for him". The court threw it out of course but at no inconsiderable cost financially and mentally to my nephew. Martyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duffers Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 it's an age thing sometimes - I used to get pulled over constantly - I had an old car - and so it couldn't possibly be roadworthy could it, so every dipstick jobsworth on the Stoke force use to hassle me we are rapidly becoming a police state, but in defence of the police - they're not all plonkers, and are possibly no more impressed by a lot of their fellow officers than we are. ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.