Booked for speeding

[Brian Kirby]

colin - 2008-12-13 9:34 PM

BGD - 2008-12-13 11:25 AM It doesn't matter what "class" of vehicle it is; the rule covers all vehicles, and simply says if the vehicles unladen weight is over 3050kgs it can't legally be driven at above 50mph on a dual carriageway.

Just to clarify why I posted about vans, I was concerned this statement may have mislead people to believe any van under 3050kg unladen could driven at higher limit, I should have edited BGD's post to highlight that one issue.

The confusion, I think, may be coming from the use of the word "van".  Some use that word as an abbreviation for a motor caravan, and others as an abbreviation for a light commercial vehicle.  It is the latter which are permanently restricted to 50MPH on two lane roads.  The former are only so restricted if their unladen weight exceeds 3050Kg.  If the original post had been submitted in the Motorhome Matters section, the relevance of the speed limits might have been a little more obvious, but we are where we are.

[Guest Tracker]

Have I missed something here?

 

As no one seems to know the U/W of any given van for sure, as it is not on the V5, and the only evidence seems to be the manufacturers blurb, surely the burden of weight proof lies with the prosecuting PC/DPP or whatever?

 

Surely as long as the vehicle is not unloaded and check weighed by PC Plod at the time of any alleged offence, surely doing so at any later time would be indicative only of retrospective U/W, and as such invalid as evidence one way or the other in a court of law?

 

If they are to successfully prosecute they will surely need to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the vehicle had an U/W of over 3050kg at the time of the offence and I see no way of so doing retrospectively?

 

Even allowing for a maximum 5% variation, as long as your van is under 2900 kg U/W in any manufacturers evidence that the owner produces, should it be needed, it would be reasonable to calculate that 105% of 2900 is a maximum U/W of 3045 kg in which case an alleged speed limit infringement of between 50 to 60 mph would have no case to answer?

 

For any van with an U/W of between 2900 and 3050 kg this might be a little less clear cut but nevertheless should a van owner reasonably be expected to weigh his own van empty to verify it's U/W - which again is only valid at the time of weighing - or is it suffice to ensure that you remain within the GVW limit - which again surely can only be legally verified for prosecution purposes at the time of any alleged offence?

 

Please feel free to put me right where I am wrong!

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2008-12-14 5:27 PM Have I missed something here? As no one seems to know the U/W of any given van for sure, as it is not on the V5, and the only evidence seems to be the manufacturers blurb, surely the burden of weight proof lies with the prosecuting PC/DPP or whatever? Surely as long as the vehicle is not unloaded and check weighed by PC Plod at the time of any alleged offence, surely doing so at any later time would be indicative only of retrospective U/W, and as such invalid as evidence one way or the other in a court of law? If they are to successfully prosecute they will surely need to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the vehicle had an U/W of over 3050kg at the time of the offence and I see no way of so doing retrospectively? Even allowing for a maximum 5% variation, as long as your van is under 2900 kg U/W in any manufacturers evidence that the owner produces, should it be needed, it would be reasonable to calculate that 105% of 2900 is a maximum U/W of 3045 kg in which case an alleged speed limit infringement of between 50 to 60 mph would have no case to answer? For any van with an U/W of between 2900 and 3050 kg this might be a little less clear cut but nevertheless should a van owner reasonably be expected to weigh his own van empty to verify it's U/W - which again is only valid at the time of weighing - or is it suffice to ensure that you remain within the GVW limit - which again surely can only be legally verified for prosecution purposes at the time of any alleged offence? Please feel free to put me right where I am wrong!

You are not wrong.  However, as stated many times above, all accessories fitted to the van increase its unladen weight, as do some chassis options such as cab aircon, larger engines, auto transmissions, 3850Kg MAM chassis, etc.  It is therefore quite possible for an individual van to have an ULW substantially above that of the basic version, which is what is almost invariably quoted in the catalogue.

Courts do tend to favour the police wherever possible, magistrates courts possibly more than Crown courts.  Since ULW is unlikely to vary from day to day, it is possible (maybe not likely) that where a police officer expresses a strong suspicion that the said vehicle's ULW did, in fact, exceed 3050 Kg, and his ticket was correctly issued, the court might order the van weighed to establish the facts.  If one had pushed one's case to that point, and the van's ULW was proved greater than 3,050Kg, what then?  Fine plus costs, seems probable.  That would eliminate a few, slightly cocky, "then let them prove it" smiles, methinks.  I think this is a case of "How lucky do you feel, punk?"  :-)

[Basil]

I have been following this thread with interest and I believe that there is a PC somewhere with 'egg' on his face trying to work out a way to back down without losing face, just my opinion.

However just for my interest, I note that in an earlier post someone stated that the spare wheel was not included in the unladen weight and this is also stated in our vehicle handbook (as well as leisure battery, gas, tools and various other removable items). Yet it has been said that the awning would be included, how can this be?

The reason I ask this is that the awning fitted to ours (a Fiamma) and no doubt many other owners vans is only hooked on to 'fixed' plates and then located to the plate by a 'setscrew' to each plate. I am sure that I could remove my awning quicker than I could remove my spare wheel from it's underslung carrier, albeit I would need assistance to unhook it and lift it off the fixed plates due to its length, so I would maintain that even the awning would NOT have to be included in the unladen weight.

 

Bas

[davenewellhome]

That's simple Bas, the spare wheel is carried, in effect, as "goods" the awning is not carried as "goods" but in fact becomes part of the vehicle. to use the spare wheel involves removing it, to use the awning does not.

 

I'm with Brian on this, just how lucky do you feel??

 

D.

[Basil]

Thanks Dave I accept your point, so does that mean then the definition of the removable items is 'goods' and how does that work with gas cylinders and leisure battery for instance (they are both stated in our handbook). I also believe I would take as long as the awning removing both of those as well!

Fortunately I have no worries on the unladen weight so I don't have to 'feel lucky', just wondered if it would help others cases.

 

Bas

[davenewellhome]

Bas, I suggest you go back and re-read the definition of unladen weight posted by Bruce some time ago. I believe you'll find that batteries and water etc are not counted.

 

D.

[Brian Kirby]

Basil

This is all getting highly theoretical, but from Bruce's post, the definition of "unladen" is as follows:

• inclusive of the body and all parts which are necessary to or ordinarily used with the vehicle or trailer when working on a road; and
• exclusive of water, fuel or accumulators used for the purpose of the supply of power for the propulsion of the vehicle.

I think the operative bit would be "ordinarily used with the vehicle or trailer when working on a road".  I guess you could spend most of next years GDP on lawyers arguing the toss over the precise interpretation of "ordinarily" when applied to a motorhome, or even the reasonable interpretation of "working on a road". 

I still think this is mainly a case of - how lucky (and rich) do you feel! 

The original object of this string was to obtain advice about a particular speeding ticket.  The originator (along with some others) seems to be of the "I feel very lucky" personality type.  However, before just adopting that stance, it might be worth asking yourselves who gains if the optimists are wrong, and who loses.  And then ask, in respect of the optimists' advice, how much will it cost them if their advice is wrong, and how much will it cost me?  Sobering thought, no?

[mco]

Just to bring you up to speed, so to speak, on Mike being booked for speeding.

 

Not having heard anything by the New Year we assumed that the policeman had checked the Road Traffic Act and realised that there was no case to answer. Then early February a summons to court arrived for the case to be heard mid March.

 

Mike contacted our solicitor, gave him the details and asked him to sort it out. He came back in a couple of hours and verified the the information as printed in the MMM, which is, if a vehicle is registered as a motorcaravan on the V5 and has an unladen weight of less than 3050 kgs then it's speed limits are the same as a car.

 

He put the facts to the Procurator Fiscal who told him to plead Not Guilty when the case reached court and that plea would be accepted.

 

So, all done and dusted but the insurance company would only give advice but not supply a solicitor so we had to find our own.

 

It's bad enough that the policeman couldn't be bothered to check the facts when Mike had asked him to but what we didn't realise was that, in Scotland, Mike wasn't able to claim his costs back when found not guilty. So, this man not only wasted tax payers money by bringing this case to court but wasted our time and money too.

[davenewellhome]

So is Mike's van below 3050KGs in the unladen state?

 

D.

[Keithl]

Dave,

 

From an earlier post...

 

mco - 2008-12-02 10:55 PM

 

According to the manufacturer the unladen weight is 2,912 kgs, but, as I said earlier if the matter came to court a visit to the weighbridge would be in order.

 

Edit. And of course congrats to Mike on getting rightly cleared.

 

Keith.

[Hymer C 9.]

Carol really pleased to hear the out come, something you and Mike could have done without, but good information for us all to be aware off. Carol.

[Keithl]

davenewell@home - 2009-03-19 5:32 PM

 

So is Mike's van below 3050KGs in the unladen state?

 

D.

 

On reading Dave's post again I think I may have missed the point of his question.

Did the court take the manufacturers quoted unladen weight as gospel or did you have to have the M/H weighed and proves it's unladen weight was actually below 3,050 kg?

If so what was it's weight?

 

Keith.

[davenewellhome]

No Keith, you actually missed my point which was quite simply has Mike bothered to establish, by means of a weighbridge, what his actual unladen weight is? Or did he, as I suspect is the case, just carry on in blind ignorance of the actual unladen weight and rely on the solicitor to back him up.

 

Way back when this all started several people, myself included, advised to get the vehicle weighed in as near to specified unladen weight condition as was possible. To date it would appear that Mike has chosen to ignore that advice.

 

I just don't see how a defence can be made based on details that are not known for fact.

D.

[Brian Kirby]

And, having weighed the van, and then having proof of its unladen weight, one could have presented the facts to the police, they would have dropped the case, and no solicitor's bills need have resulted.  Still horses to water etc!  :-)

[mco]

Dave, you seem to have missed the point. You suggest that I carried on in blind ignorance of the actual unladen weight but this was never in question. The policeman would not accept that there was a difference between the speed limits for a Transit van and a motorcaravan based on a Transit van. This was the point in question.

 

Quite frankly why the court should not accept a company such as Auto-Sleepers word for the unladen weight I cannot fathom. If I had been asked to to supply proof of the unladen weight then I suppose I would have had to go to the trouble of emptying the motorhome completely and finding an official weighbridge, which is no easy task when you live as rural as we do. So why go to the trouble if it's not necessary?

 

Brian as per the reply to Dave. The police would not have dropped the case because the unladen weight was never in question. It was the difference between a commercial van and a motorcaravan that was in question.

 

Just as a matter of interest if the issue had been the unladen weight then the policeman would have had to escort me to a weighbridge to check the weight at that point in time.

 

Mike

[mco]

I said to Mike a few days ago that he should let as many fellow motorhomers know about this issue so that if they are stopped by the police they can feel certain of their rights.

Hopefully everyone on this forum now does.

 

Carol

[Brian Kirby]

mco - 2009-03-19 9:28 PM Dave, you seem to have missed the point. You suggest that I carried on in blind ignorance of the actual unladen weight but this was never in question. The policeman would not accept that there was a difference between the speed limits for a Transit van and a motorcaravan based on a Transit van. This was the point in question. Quite frankly why the court should not accept a company such as Auto-Sleepers word for the unladen weight I cannot fathom. If I had been asked to to supply proof of the unladen weight then I suppose I would have had to go to the trouble of emptying the motorhome completely and finding an official weighbridge, which is no easy task when you live as rural as we do. So why go to the trouble if it's not necessary? Brian as per the reply to Dave. The police would not have dropped the case because the unladen weight was never in question. It was the difference between a commercial van and a motorcaravan that was in question. Just as a matter of interest if the issue had been the unladen weight then the policeman would have had to escort me to a weighbridge to check the weight at that point in time. Mike

Mike, I agree that some points have been missed.  Among these is the fact that it is the unladen weight of a vehicle that governs whether it can be driven legally at more than 50 mph on two lane roads.  If the unladen weight exceeds 3050Kg it may not, and if less then 3050, it may.  It matters not whether the vehicle is commercial, motorhome, or what: it is purely its weight that decides. 

Since a converted panel van inevitably weighs more than the van from which it was converted, establishing its actual unladen weight was critical to establishing whether the speed at the time was legal, or illegal.  If the van actually weighs under 3050, the speed at the time was perfectly legal and no offence was committed, so no case to answer.  A weighbridge ticket, and the relevant section of the Road Traffic Acts, would readily have established that.  QED?

[davenewellhome]

I agree with Brian, the point in question was not whether it was a motorcaravan or not but what the unladen weight of the vehicle was/is. As I said before, how can anyone mount a legal defence based upon details that are not known to be factually correct? AS may give a figure in their documentation but (as Brian pointed out earlier) this figure will not take into account natural variance (the reason motorcaravan converters quote weights plus or minus 5%) of materials used or any additions to the base vehicle such as a wind out awning.

 

D.

[donna miller]

Just to back up what Dave, Brian and myself have tried to point out to people, this extract was written in the legal section of a Practical Motorcaravan issue. It clearly points out that there is a legal definable difference, and all the arguements about motorhomers being special and above C&U regulations should be put to rest.

 

 

When is a van not a van?

Legally, motorhomes do not quite fit into the law on cars, nor those on heavier vehicles, but lie somewhere in between. So what is a ‘motorhome’? Or ‘motorcaravan’, or ‘living van’, ‘leisure vehicle’, or ’campervan’ for that matter? There is not even one agreed description in English for it!

Legally, part of the problem is that there are slightly different definitions in various aspects of UK law – not even taking into account the European picture. There is some pressure now to fix what we mean in law, via Euro-harmonisation – and not before time.

At present, about the most workable definition is a European one, now incorporated into a British Standard for ‘Leisure Accommodation Vehicles’. These are “self-propelled leisure accommodation vehicles that meet requirements for construction and use of road vehicles” and which contain “at least seats, table, sleeping accommodation which can be converted from the seats, cooking and storage facilities”.

It’s all a bit of a mouthful, but it means your Transit van with a camp bed in the back is not legally a motorcaravan. And why does this matter? Well, if you buy a van intending to convert it into a motorcaravan (i.e. a self-build) you need to ensure that it meets the above criteria if it is to be called a ‘motorcaravan’. It is not sufficient merely to put a bed in the back of a Transit because it’s not a motorhome – this, then, has legal consequences as it governs how fast you can travel because speed limits differ between commercial vehicles and motorhomes above a certain weight (but more about this, later). And if you’re buying a second-hand motorhome, especially if it’s a home-made conversion, you’ll need to be sure that it meets these criteria for insurance purposes.

Most motorcaravans are classified in UK law as a ‘motor car’, or ‘heavy motor car’ according to whether or not they exceed 3050kg unladen weight. This distinction is important and can affect how the vehicle is treated under the law. For example, speed limits alter over a certain weight, so a motorhome with an unladen weight of more than 3050kg is restricted to 50mph on single-carriageway roads (see Table 1). Most standard-sized motorhomes will fall within the definition of a ‘motor car’.

Owners of large motorhomes (over 3500kg) have to pay a small extra amount of UK road tax (currently £5). They are classified as ’private LGVs’ (Large Goods Vehicles) – a nonsense of a designation which the industry is trying hard to reverse, but with no success so far.

The base vehicle is classified as an N1 (commercial) vehicle, to which slightly different European rules apply when it collects the M1 (passenger vehicle) classification after conversion. The advent of Whole Vehicle Type Approval in the future may help iron out some of these classification anomalies.

 

The article goes on to explain the law regarding licencing as well, just for those of you who drive 10 tonne RVs and argue about your licence.

 

http://www.practicalmotorhome.com/features/law.html

 

It is a very informative article, and well worth the 5 mins it takes to read it.

 

 

[Usinmyknaus]

Brian and Dave's recommendation to establish the actual unladen weight in advance is of course, sensible and good for peace of mind. But if this is necessary how would one demonstrate that the result was legally valid - was it done by a suitably qualified vehicle/legal specialist acceptable to a court/the police/ the CPS?

 

I still have an uneasy feeling in my waters at the implication that we should have to prove our innocence in advance to the police or anyone else. It is for the police to prove guilt, the accused has nothing to prove under English law. There are very clear rules of evidence which must be followed. One mounts a defence in civil courts when one is sued say, for breach of contract and the case is decided on the balance of probabilities. Under criminal law the CPS have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt whether or not you care to make any defence other than pleading "not guilty".

 

To go "beyond reasonable doubt" I still wonder, academically, how, exactly, the police could possibly prove that a typical max 3500 or 3300 motorhome, with a manufacturer's brochure showing say, 2720kgs unladen weight exceeded 3050 Kgs unladen weight at the specific moment that the driver was accused of speeding? Short of escorting the driver to a weighbridge and having an appropriately qualified and certified specialist removing every item which does not qualify as part of the unladen weight, and then comprehensively photographing and documenting the results, which does not seem a sensible use of resources, I still think the police would struggle to present sufficient evidence to the CPS, let alone a court.

 

I am not seeking an argument, I am simply intrigued by a fascinating subject. Any policemen or criminal lawyers out there care to comment please?

 

Bob

[donna miller]

Bob,

 

I agree that we should not have to prove our innocence, however, by taking that stance, we only make things difficult for ourselves in the long run.

In an ideal world, it should be left up to the cps to prove that we have committed an offence, not for us to prove we haven't, the police merely report us for the ALLEDGED offence. So surely if we are fore armed with the relevant proof at the time of being stopped, then we save ourself time, worry and the inconvenience of a court appearence.

 

It would take 2 minutes to copy the article I posted a link to, print it out and maybe laminate it for safe keeping, I would also suggest calling your local test center or VOSA testing center and getting a weight ticket from them, this in conjunction with the manufacturers weight plate on your van, should be sufficient to convince a traffic cop at a routine stop.

It would also serve to give yourself assurance that you are driving within the law.

If your vehicle is found to be over 3050 kg unladen, then you KNOW you have to adhere to lower speed restrictions, because that is the law, and you have been shown definitive proof of that. Don't forget, a cop CAN take you to a weighing station at the time he believes you have committed an offence, so why give them a reason to do so.

 

However, if you are under the legal weight limit as defined by the regulations, and you have a weighbridge ticket from a reliable and licenced source, then you know that no matter what action the coppers take, you are safe from conviction.

 

Well, it makes sense to me to follow that route, regardless of my true feelings toward the legal system.

 

As you say, there are very strict rules of evidence, but don't forget, that works for us as well as against us.

 

 

 

 

[Mike Chapman]

donna miller - 2009-03-20 10:06 AM

 

Bob,

 

I agree that we should not have to prove our innocence, however, by taking that stance, we only make things difficult for ourselves in the long run.

In an ideal world, it should be left up to the cps to prove that we have committed an offence, not for us to prove we haven't, the police merely report us for the ALLEDGED offence. So surely if we are fore armed with the relevant proof at the time of being stopped, then we save ourself time, worry and the inconvenience of a court appearence.

 

It would take 2 minutes to copy the article I posted a link to, print it out and maybe laminate it for safe keeping, I would also suggest calling your local test center or VOSA testing center and getting a weight ticket from them, this in conjunction with the manufacturers weight plate on your van, should be sufficient to convince a traffic cop at a routine stop.

It would also serve to give yourself assurance that you are driving within the law.

If your vehicle is found to be over 3050 kg unladen, then you KNOW you have to adhere to lower speed restrictions, because that is the law, and you have been shown definitive proof of that. Don't forget, a cop CAN take you to a weighing station at the time he believes you have committed an offence, so why give them a reason to do so.

 

However, if you are under the legal weight limit as defined by the regulations, and you have a weighbridge ticket from a reliable and licenced source, then you know that no matter what action the coppers take, you are safe from conviction.

 

Well, it makes sense to me to follow that route, regardless of my true feelings toward the legal system.

 

As you say, there are very strict rules of evidence, but don't forget, that works for us as well as against us.

 

 

Hello Donna,

 

Thanks for the reference, it is certainly worthwhile doing as you advised and keeping a copy.

 

May I pick up on one specific point from your posting regarding having a weighbridge ticket from a reliable and licenced source. Where the vehicle weight is close to the 3050kg unladen weight I cannot see that this would help other than by showing the Police officer that you have at least weighed your vehicle and are probably within the law. However there are drivers who carry an insurance certificate that is supposedly legal but for an insurance that was cancelled and the certificate not returned. At least in this case the police can contact the insurance company and confirm validity, that would not be the case with a weighbridge ticket.

 

As an example my vehicle has an unladen weight of 2985 kg acording to the brochure which includes fuel, driver and 2 x 11kg gas bottles. The actual unladen weight which includes factory fit options of 65 kg is 3040 kg and still within the 3050 limit. If the weight was 3060 kg what is to stop me taking out one of the gas bottles and then getting a Weighbridge Ticket for 3049kg therebye "proving" that the vehicle was below 3050 and allowing me to drive at car speed limits? The weighbridge ticket is useless as legal proof unless it details exactly what was fitted to the vehicle when weighed.

 

Another small point is that most weighbridges have a tolerance of approximately +-2% which in the case of my vehicle could produce a ticket between 2982 and 3111 kgs.

 

I am not trying to be pedantic simply to say that there are some people who carry documentation that is not strictly legal and the police are aware of that. On all other points I agree with what you say.

 

Regards,

 

Mike.

[Patricia]

Thank you for the reference Donna which I have printed out. However, I assume that it is still up-to-date with the advice although it mentions something 'will be in 2006' so presumably it is about 4 years' old now.

 

I do not have my V5 document to hand but mine definitely has PLG on it which I always assumed meant Private Light Goods not Large Goods as the article says. My motorhome is marked as 3400 kg and I pay £185 tax annually. Is this the correct classification then?

 

To be on the safe side I will keep to 50m.p.h. and then probably be done for driving too slowly! I assume I can still drive at 70 on a dual carriageway though?

[Usinmyknaus]

Donna & Mike,

 

I agree that it is sensible for a MH driver to check the unladen weight for his/her own enlightenment but that is a separate issue from what evidence the CPS would need to put before a court to gain a conviction.

 

Obviously the current rules are silly and in practice, I would contend unenforceable for the reasons I gave earlier. Surely the sensible answer is for the law to specify at or below a plated 3500 Kgs GVW and above 3500 GVW. Vehicles are plated so it would be easy for enforcer and driver to see which speed limit applies.

 

Let's say it was necessary for the driver to submit evidence in his own defence, I would contend that a weight slip from a public weighbridge need not be accepted as valid for the sort of reason given in Mike's posting and also because technically, what exactly, qualified the driver to make the assessment of "unladen weight" within the meaning of the law? However, I still feel that obtaining such a weight slip in advance is academic because ultimately I still cannot see how, realistically, the police could convince a court that the vehicle was over 3050 kg unladen weight at the time of the alleged offence in the given scenario.

 

Gross weight of course is simple, they just take you to a weighbridge or VOSA work with the police at the roadside.

 

The police can allege what they like, but they still have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. In simplistic terms, if they cannot produce in evidence a valid, certified unladen weight from a qualified individual, assessed contemporaneously with the alleged offence, I still cannot see how they could gain a safe conviction.

 

I'm open to be convinced otherwise, but I am not there yet.

 

Bob