Booked for speeding

[donna miller]

 

Bob,

 

Again I agree with what you say, but let's not forget that we don't live in an ideal world.

 

Any traffic cop or VOSA official who wants to weigh you after a stop, will take you to an official DoT weighbridge, if that weighbridge ticket is enough to convict you, then it's official enough to defend you.

All the opinions in the world will not alter the fact that the law is the law, so it's up to ourselves to ensure we are not operating outside those laws.

 

It's no use saying " the easiest solution would be to base it on MPGVW" because unfortunately that solution is only easier because it suits us at the time, It would be wonderfull if laws were actually based on common sense, but alas, they are not.

 

As the holder of a operators licence, I disagree with many of the petty regulations relative to the running of an LGV, but I have to abide by them or face the consequences.

To wish for, or even to campaign on this issue would only result in shooting ourselves in the foot, ongoing European legislation is forcing speed limits downward, and they are basing everything nowadays on vehicle specifications, i.e. emissions, weights etc.

 

Imagine this scenario............................................

 

Let us say for instance a petion was started on this issue, we attempt to persuade Brussells to ammend the weight / speed limit regulations. They are already in the process of applying greater restrictions on us with regards to euro compliant engines etc, the environmental lobbyists are putting their views forward and will contest the application, we however, present a strong case that the laws are open to misinterpretation and are difficult to police due to varying information from manufacturers and converters.

What do you believe would be the likely outcome ?

 

1. A raising of the weight at which vehicles are subject to lower speed restrictions, this would apply to all vehicles with a GVW of 3500kg and over.

 

2. A lowering of the limit at which vehicles are subject to lower speed restrictions, from the current unladen weight of 3050kgs to the new GVW of 3050kgs.

 

I know which one my money would be on.

 

I admire your stance that you believe the current law to be un-enforceable, but I fear your belief is misguided. I also believe that my suggestion re. carrying a copy of a certified weighbridge ticket, would get me further than yours in the event of us being stopped and subjected to the possibility of being reported.

 

Let's not forget that British cops are allowed to use discretion, but the one thing they hate is someone who insists they would never make it stick, and someone who tries to insist they know better.

In a situation whereby you was in danger of breaking the weight/speed limits, my particular advice would be to act humble, explain that you were aware of the restrictions and had took the neccessary precautions (eg, weighbridge tickets) to ensure that you had , to the best of your knowledge, complied with the speed limits on that particular road and for the vehicle you were in. It may go against your (or my) principles to accept a patronising sermon from a cop 10-15 years younger than you or me, but that is a whole lot better than £60 plus points on my (clean) licence.

 

Manufacturers declare the CO2 emissions of your car when it is made, and those figure are accepted throughout the life of the vehicle for taxation and other purposes, that doesn't mean that the CO2 reading stays the same at all times, but it is a declared legal figure. The same applies to weights, if the manufacturer or converter declares that the unladen weight is 2999, then that is the weight on the plate or certificate of conformity, you cannot be expected to check the unladen weight each and every time you use the vehicle, so make sure you get it checked on a regular basis, the criteria are laid out pretty clearly, and keep a copy of that proof with you.

 

Anyway, let's hope nobody ever gets put in this situation.

[Usinmyknaus]

Donna let's hope so and having a bit of insurance is no bad thing. It's still a conundrum and I'll be interested to see how the situation develops in future. I expect eventually someone is going to be unlucky enough to have the predicament and it will be aired on here. Ultimately, unless and until a specific case goes through court to establish precedent we can't be sure.

 

Bob

[Usinmyknaus]

Patricia raises an interesting point on going slowly. I have avoided North Wales since the Mad Mullah of Traffic and Tourism Reduction took over and reports of dubious methods of speed enforcement/entrapment/confusion and "Gotchas" mushroomed in the "Daily Telegraph" (so must be true).

 

If I succumb to the intense yearning in my breast to return once more to hallowed land of my forefathers, but drive everywhere at 10 mph below the lowest limit I think could possibly be enforced by any sane person on the road I am driving on, in order to keep my licence spotless, could the Mullah's "Safety" Taliban do anything nasty about it?

 

Bob :-D

[Usinmyknaus]

In case of interest, from "policespecials.com". "Only those officers who have been specifically authorised in writing (by their Chief Constable) under S78 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 can require a vehicle to be weighed." They add that most officers cannot. Presumably an appropriately trained and authorised officer would have to supervise the unloading of a motorhome down to that configuration which constitutes the legal definition of "unladen weight." One would hope they had better things to do.

 

Also, in case of overweight versus gross weight issues the website suggests - "depending on how overweight a vehicle is as a percentage, the offence can be dealt with in various ways, warning, FPN or summons to court."

 

Bob

[emmbeedee]

 

 

"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."

 

 

 

Donna, not sure about the rest of the article but this bit is incorrect, AFAIK.

Motorhomes below 3500kg are classed as PLG (Private light goods) wheras over 3500kg are classed as PHGV (Private heavy goods). Perversly, the heavier ones actually pay LESS tax, not £5 more as stated. Currently £165 as against £185 for PLG class.

 

 

 

Sorry - quotes didn't work as I intended!

[donna miller]

 

Hi Michael,

 

I didn't notice that bit, you are right. Currently vehicles up to and including 7500kgs pay £165 ved, when taxation class shows HGV, as does our 7.5 tonner.

 

 

[Mike Chapman]

Several people on this thread have mentioned being pulled over or prosecuted for driving too slow. There have been several cases of drivers being charged with driving too slow. The one I particularly remember being a pensioner driving his car constantly and having been previously warned about driving at a maximum 25mph in the rush hour on a single lane carriageway and holding up lines of traffic.

 

Is there any law or guideline for what constitutes "Too slow" the speed if any what type and weight of vehicle and what action a police officer can take and in what circumstances. I can see huge difficulties in establishing the reason for a charge, eg. Is 25 mph too slow on ice or in fog and is it too slow on wet roads etc.

 

Regards,

 

Mike.

[colin]

Mr pedantic here, I would like to pick up on a couple of eroneous points made.

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.

 

In so far as I'm aware, the 3050kg only applies to motorhomes, not as this post implies commercial vehicles

 

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.

 

I think you'll find that is your MIRO, not, unladen weight, they are not the same.

[Brian Kirby]

Mike Chapman - 2009-03-20 11:27 AM ............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.

Mike

If you go to a "proper" weighbridge and ask for the ticket, it will record date, time, registration number, and weight, and will be stamped/signed by/on behalf of, the operator.  These tickets provide legal evidence of vehicle weight and are produced by HGV drivers if challenged as evidence they are not overweight.  Weighbridges are subject to periodic checks for accuracy by Weights and Measures inspectors.

 ............ 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. ..................

  

I think this is getting a bit close to a "barrack room lawyer" argument, but, on a point of accuracy, what you are quoting is not the accepted definition of unladen weight for a vehicle.  For unladen weight the vehicle should be empty.  So, no driver, no tools, no fuel, no water, and no gas.  Fixtures are part of the vehicle, whether factory, dealer, or DIY fit, so must be included.

Your quoted calculation is that used to establish user payload.  The van is presumably German, as they quote 11Kg cylinders, but note that they often quote aluminium cylinders (of unspecified self-weight) that are not, so far as I know, available in UK.   UK gas cylinders are unlikely to be 11KG capacity, which is in any case the weight of the gas, and does not include the self weight of the cylinder.  The commonest equivalent UK sourced cylinders are of 13Kg gas capacity, with a steel cylinder weighing about 15Kg, so two full UK cylinders will weigh about 56Kg in total.  The calculation you quote includes the driver, but only at a nominal 75Kg, so if you have weighed your van including yourself as driver, you should adjust for your own weight over or under 75Kg, as relevant.

However, back to the point: if you have a "proper" weighbridge ticket that shows a weight below 3,050Kg, there is virtually no arguable tolerance, except possible seasonal moisture absorption.  The vehicle, as the term implies, is to be totally unladen.  Since you would need to drive it to a weighbridge, you would have to have some fuel on board, so it will, of necessity, be weighed in a condition exceeding the definition of unladen.  As such, if stripped of its fuel, it could only get lighter.  Apart from filling the interior with helium filled balloons, I can't see how a properly completed and signed weighbridge certificate, showing less than 3,050Kg, can fail to provide conclusive evidence of unladen weight entitling the vehicle travel legally at 60 MPH on de-restricted two lane roads.

[mco]

In so far as I'm aware, the 3050kg only applies to motorhomes, not as this post implies commercial vehicles

 

Colin exactly right. That's what I've been saying all along and that's what has caused the confusion with the police. But they wouldn't go to the trouble to check.

 

Donna your article actually supports this and as others have said is worth printing off and keeping as reference, but if you get the type of policeman that I did then he won't necessarily accept it nor will being humble cut any ice because that's the card I played. Not because I was trying to be devious but because that's the type of person that I am.

 

Mike

[nowtelse2do]

Patricia

Even when you get to 75 I'm sure they will still let you drive on dual carriage ways :D

 

Back in the early 60's i was an apprentice fitter in our local quarry, my job was to take the inner wheels off the waggon (4), empty the tipping oil out, take the passenger seat & the wood floor boards on the passenger side out, then the rear tailgate & all the sideboards off (6 wood one's), syphoned off all the diesel out of the tank leaving just enough for a return trip from the weighbridge (local council yard) no test stations then but saved a lot on motor tax. I cant remember how much the tax was because it varied from truck to truck but it was hundreds of pounds which i would think thousands now in to-days terms.

 

Dave

[Patricia]

Well spotted Dave!! However, many a true word spoken in jest - especially with this Government who might ban all over 70. I have certainly seen articles by young people who advocate this.

 

Actually though it was a serious question - does driving on a dual carriageway have restrictions regarding weight or is it 70 mph for every vehicle?

[mco]

Patricia, the vehicles that are restricted to 50 mph on a single carriageway road are restricted to 60 mph on a dual carriageway.

 

However if your vehicle has an unladen weight of less than 3050 kgs and is registered as a motorcaravan then your speed limits are the same as a car.

[nowtelse2do]

Patricia, I wonder what those young people will be thinking when and if they get to 70 and they cant drive anymore because of the law they want to create.

The answer to your question is yes there is a weight restriction on certain vehicles on dual carriageways.

The limits on motorways is 70 mph except for most trucks which is 60mph but they have speed limiters which are set at 56mph but beware when going down hill ,a fully loaded truck will overrun the limiter, so if you are dropping down Windy Hill on the M62 Yorkshire/Lancashire border keep a close eye on the rear mirror, I forgot for coaches it is 65mph. It doesn't seem logical for all the different type's of vehicles on motorways for only a 10mph difference, but then again what is logic to any Government .

 

Dave

 

[Patricia]

Not thinking straight today - it's a bad day for me - as I did know about the 60mph on dual carriageways but I genuinely thought it only applied to the over 3.5T m/homes. Now this thread has educated me in the 3050kg rule I am pretty sure that I will now come under the lower speed limit too. Bit academic though as I rarely go over 60 in England, even on the motorways, much less on dual-carriageways. I will certainly have to keep my eye on the speedo though.

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

The Magistrates Court Act (or whatever they call it) says that if the defendant considers himself to be innocent because of something only he knows about, then it cannot be taken into account unless he reveals it to the court. Seems sensible.

 

Recently a Welsh mini-bus driver was zapped by a speed camera. I'm not sure of the exact circumstances, but think his defence was based on the number of seats.

 

The camera operator believed his bus had 16 seats or more. The driver KNEW he had only 8 seats. (Does that make sense?). Now, if the driver had decided to rely on the police PROVING he was guilty, they just had to present the facts as they understood them. The driver had to go to court and PROVE he was INNOCENT.

 

I have heard that HGV drivers have been convicted of being overloaded, solely on the OPINION of an EXPERIENCED roadside examiner. Mind you, that was about 30 years ago.

 

Way back in the 1950s, I read of a Reliant owner who had to have his trike weighed (I wonder who he upset?). The weighbridge recorded 8cwt 4lbs, so his trike was taxed at the car rate. He cleaned all the mud off the underside, had it reweighed, and got his tax back downto the motorcycle rate.

 

My wife is just about to replace her KIA Picanta. The old one is taxed at £125, the new one at £35, just because they have removed the middle rear seat-belt. Renault have done something similar with one of their small cars. Changing the tyres has reduced the road tax.

Crazy.....all of them!

 

602

[Brian Kirby]

mco - 2009-03-20 8:23 PM In so far as I'm aware, the 3050kg only applies to motorhomes, not as this post Implies commercial vehicles Colin exactly right.

In the hope it will help clarify the situation, I have copied the following, which is just the relevant part.

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

Schedule 6, speed limits for certain classes of vehicles

1	2	3
Item No.	Class of Vehicle	Maximum speed (in miles per hour) while vehicle is being driven on:
		(a) Motorway	(b) Dual carriageway road not being a motorway	(c) Other road
1.	A passenger vehicle, motor caravan or dual-purpose vehicle not drawing a trailer being a vehicle with an unladen weight exceeding 3·05 tonnes or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers:
	(i) if not exceeding 12 metres in overall length	70	60	50
	(ii) if exceeding 12 metres in overall length	60	60	50

This is the legislation that separates vehicles under 3,050Kg from those over, so far as speed limits are concerned.  As can be seen, the restriction applies only to vehicles of the relevant class with an unladen weight exceeding 3,050Kg.  Vehicles of the relevant class with unladen weights of less than 3,050Kg are subject to the normal national speed limits.  As can also be seen, the restriction does not apply only to motorhomes.  As I said, previously, if less that 3,050Kg unladen, the type of vehicle is irrelevant.

That's what I've been saying all along and that's what has caused the confusion with the police. But they wouldn't go to the trouble to check. .............. Mike

But why would they?  They were of the opinion they were right, and he who thinks himself right seldom doubts himself.  The officer who issued the ticket thought he was right.  Why would a more senior officer, knowing nothing of the circumstances, doubt the ticket had been properly issued, and check his subordinate?  He would only have been prompted to do so, if he had received evidence that caused him to doubt his subordinate's judgement.  That, more or less, is where I came in.  It should not have been allowed to get to court.

[colin]

Brian Kirby - 2009-03-22 6:31 PM

As I said, previously, if less that 3,050Kg unladen, the type of vehicle is irrelevant

This is not correct, the lower limits also apply to goods vehicles which are not car derived and have a gross weight over 2000kg.

For clarification look here

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/vanspeedlimits

[davenewellhome]

Let's try to keep it relevant guys, the fact is a MOTORCARAVAN with an UNLADEN weight of MORE than 3050KGS IS restricted to the lower limits. Therefore the important details are:

 

Is it a motorcaravan?

Is the UNLADEN weight (as defined in the road traffic regulations and previously detailed on this very thread) more than 3050 KGs?

 

Answer yes to both questions and you are limited to the lower speed limits.

Answer no and you can legally use the higher speed limits but it could be wise to have proof that you are legally allowed to do so.

 

how do you get the proof to carry?

Simple, empty your van of everything you can, including the spare wheel and visit your local public weighbridge.

 

If you are under 3050KGS then you are safe and the weighbirdge ticket will go some way to backing up your argument with PC Plod.

If you are over 3050KGs by a significant margin then you are limited to the lower speed limits.

If you are only just over 3050KGs you may be able to argue your way out of a speeding ticket BUT it might be easier for everyone involved if you just accepted the lower limits and then the problem never arises.

 

Or am I the only one that sees this as sensible? Could be me, I've been wrong before :D .

 

D.

[BGD]

W3526602 - 2009-03-21 7:20 AM

 

Hi,

 

The Magistrates Court Act (or whatever they call it) says that if the defendant considers himself to be innocent because of something only he knows about, then it cannot be taken into account unless he reveals it to the court. Seems sensible.

 

Recently a Welsh mini-bus driver was zapped by a speed camera. I'm not sure of the exact circumstances, but think his defence was based on the number of seats.

 

The camera operator believed his bus had 16 seats or more. The driver KNEW he had only 8 seats. (Does that make sense?). Now, if the driver had decided to rely on the police PROVING he was guilty, they just had to present the facts as they understood them. The driver had to go to court and PROVE he was INNOCENT.

 

I have heard that HGV drivers have been convicted of being overloaded, solely on the OPINION of an EXPERIENCED roadside examiner. Mind you, that was about 30 years ago.

 

Way back in the 1950s, I read of a Reliant owner who had to have his trike weighed (I wonder who he upset?). The weighbridge recorded 8cwt 4lbs, so his trike was taxed at the car rate. He cleaned all the mud off the underside, had it reweighed, and got his tax back downto the motorcycle rate.

 

My wife is just about to replace her KIA Picanta. The old one is taxed at £125, the new one at £35, just because they have removed the middle rear seat-belt. Renault have done something similar with one of their small cars. Changing the tyres has reduced the road tax.

Crazy.....all of them!

 

602

 

Soz - pedantic point here with regard to the criminal law in England and Wales:

 

The Police don't prosecute in court.

The Police pass the file containing the details of the charge (the allegation of one or more actions by the individual in contravention of one or more criminal laws) to the CPS.

The CPS take a view (in the absence of hearing any in-court defence from the individual) as to whether the case is likely to result in a conviction, and whther any such conviction would be in the public interest.

Assuming two "yeses" from the CPS, the case goes to court, for the allegation from the Police to be tested in law.

Both the Police and the CPS notionally act for "The Crown" (ie the State) as it was originally the Kings law (now Acts of Parliament, and National and Local Regulations made under such Acts) that they are responsible for upholding.

 

At any time up to (and including) that court hearing, the individual doesn't have to mount any defence to the allegation. He can if he wishes "keep his powder dry" right up until the point in court where the prosecution have delivered all their evidence, and then he can present evidence of his own to knock down the prosecution arguments.

(In law, the individual or his representative doesn't have to say anything at all in court in defence to show that the prosecution were wrong to bring the charges, but they'd be pretty daft not to do so if they have pleaded Not Guilty to the charges).

 

And here's the crunch, at least from a criminal law point of view:

The defendant is NOT having to prove his innocence.

He is, rather, only seeking to show the Judge/Magistrates/jury that the hurdle of "Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (perhaps a little loosely sometimes referred to as an 80/20 test) has, when whatever he says is included in all the evidence presented to the court, failed to have been achieved by the prosecution.

 

In a legal sense, this actually isn't having to prove ones innocence at all.

 

Dozens, nay hundreds, of people walk scot-free from courts across the land each and every day who were probably guilty as hell.

But the prosecution failed, either under rules of procedure, rules of evidence, or simply upon weight of evidence when balanced by the court against whatever was said by the defence, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

And that's one of the cornerstones of an individuals rights within the British Constitution system.

 

We're socially and legally so scared about one wrong conviction, that the tests put in place in our judicial sysyem to avoid it (as far as felt politically practicable) that we fail to convict in massive numbers of other cases.

So massive numbers of criminals walk free exactly because they did not have to prove their innocence; and many go on to commit lots of further crimes.

 

 

[nowtelse2do]

colin - 2009-03-22 7:23 PM

 

 

 

 

Brian Kirby - 2009-03-22 6:31 PM

As I said, previously, if less that 3,050Kg unladen, the type of vehicle is irrelevant

This is not correct, the lower limits also apply to goods vehicles which are not car derived and have a gross weight over 2000kg.

For clarification look here

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/vanspeedlimits

 

This should put the cat amongst the pigeons, this thread is getting more interesting with each post!

Don't forget you can't plead ignorance of the law.

 

Dave

 

[Brian Kirby]

colin - 2009-03-22 7:23 PM

Brian Kirby - 2009-03-22 6:31 PM As I said, previously, if less that 3,050Kg unladen, the type of vehicle is irrelevant

This is not correct, the lower limits also apply to goods vehicles which are not car derived and have a gross weight over 2000kg. For clarification look here http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/vanspeedlimits 

Thanks Colin.  I was so busy thinking motorhome I had forgotten about the light vans.  I was also interested to see just how small the group of "car derived vans" actually is.  I see lots of non-car derived vans using the dual carriageway A27 hereabouts at well over 60 MPH, in fact well over 70MPH for that matter!  Not a message that has penetrated the consciousness of white van man very deeply.  Makes you wonder why Ford bother to make those "Sport" Transits.

[George Collings]

It is up to the prosecution to prove all the facts in the case.

 

Without the ULW they cannot prove which limit applies.

 

Opinion is not acceptable evidence in most circumstances.

 

PS. There power to make you weigh for overloading but there is no power to make you unload to establish ULW.

 

As soon as I get a 'van I load up and check GVW and axle loads.

 

My guess is that my van is just under 3050 kg ULW but I have not checked and have no intention of doing so.

 

Is ignorance bliss.

 

Draw your own conclusions

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Hello George

This has been a long string, so i wonder if you spotted this little gem on page 3 from the original poster, 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."

I think Mike was adopting a similar line to that which you advocate: i.e. "let them prove it".  However, from the above quote, it seems this approach may be unwise in Scotland, as he seems to have incurred some unrecoverable costs in presenting his case to the court.  Any ideas?

[George Collings]

Hello Brian.

 

Other than the fact that in Scotland a person cannot be found guilty on the uncorroborated evidence of a sole witness I know practically nothing about the legal sytem north of the border.

 

I doubt the situation re costs is any different in England and Wales.