You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
May be a silly q, but if blazinsaddles has "2 identical Peugeot Boxers... my work van... speed limit 60, .. a camper conversion ... allowed to do 70 as reclassified as motor caravan" how does a camera know which is which when it takes a photo?
Is it linked to ANPR- sees it's the work van doing 65 (ignoring "tolerance" for egs sake) so takes a photo, rather than takes a photo of everything doing more than 70 on a motorway?
They aren’t over 3T, not unladen anyways, more like 2.6T
So it's a European Transit rather than an African one?
What is the maximum speed of a European Transit?
Laden or unladen?
Why do people still reference the 10% + 2 rule? It’s discretionary not a legal requirement.
You're right Drac, and I had a memory that most police forces had said they prosecuted at much lower limits, so I went back to get my facts right yesterday, (seems like an important point considering the topic of this thread!)
It turns out that most forces do use this 'rule' and of the few that don't some go for 10% +3! A small proportion didn't say because they didn't want to unofficially set a new speed limit. Please don't ask me to go back and find the pages again. 😁 (although one of them was on that FOI results site that was linked on page 1)
Isn’t it time that the law regarding van speed limits is reviewed? Times have changed since all vans were workhorses used for lugging heavy weights around. So many vans now are purely leisure vehicles and have all the same driver aids as cars.
No. These leisure vehicles you speak of usually weigh as much as a loaded van, sometimes more (hands up who weighs their conversions?). You only have to look at the complete bollocks people fling in their campers to see how heavy they are (that Insta approved pine cladding, tiled kitchen area and belfast sink isn't going to weigh nothing). Coach built isn't much better with a payload of a couple of hundred kilos, that's not much once you get a few bodies in it never mind food, crockery, water, bikes etc.
The builders van is also safer by virtue of that troublesome bulkhead everyone likes to get rid of. In a crash whatevers in the back will stay there, can you confidently say the same for your sikaflexed roof and ply cabinets along with their contents?
Also this:
most vans do not have all the same driver aids, they also handle much worse, have worse braking distances, and weigh a lot more causing a lot more damage to whatever they plow into. I’d prefer they slow them down more.
Not really a 17 seater minibus would be the same size and weight the largest and heaviest vans but is regulated by different speed limits with Minibuses able to drive faster – and coach built motor homes can be bigger still. Regardless of the fact that an accident at speed in a vehicle full of live cargo would be immesureably more tragic than a van full of cardboard boxes. Similarly coaches full of un-secured living loads are able to drive at higher speeds than trucks (who’s drivers would be prosecuted if their load wasn’t strapped down securely) of the same size and weight.
What is your understanding of the speedlimits of a minibus.
Depends, what's a minibus? According to DVLA anything over 8 seats should have a limiter but my old mans 9 seat Vivaro doesn't. It's also registered as M1 on the V5C and MOT tested under class 4 so is technically a car so can be driven at those limits. And just to complicate matters further the back seats have all been removed.
As an aside does a 3T car have to do a different MoT? My t5 was classified as 2.95T so ok for “normal” MoT if it hadn’t be reclassified by the AA then I’d have needed the next one up.
Does a Range Rover at over 3T just go through normal can MoT.
Having just jumped through that hoop, the Vivaro is too long for most class 4 ramps (back wheels get on by a bawhair) so had to get tested at a class 7 centre. Spoke to the MOT guy at Kwik Fit who refused to test (actually really helpful) and he said the different classes aren't that dissimilar (7 needs weight rated tyres and presumably proper wheels).
An indicated 70 would likely have been an actual 65 at most and maybe lower. Being penalised for that sounds unusually harsh, are they stricter up in that Scotlandshire?
Ask Guy Martin.
It amazes me how many people don’t know of the reduced limit in vans
It's easy on paper but like the Vivaro above it's really not in reality.
Good luck, OP - Watching with interest.
I have taken a keen interest in this previously (IANAL). Our van got the body type changed to Motor Caravan by the DVLA just before their latest set of "rules" came out.
Speed limit law is in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Part VI (as amended).
The lower speed limits for "particular classes of vehicles" is section 86, and they are listed in Schedule 6 of the act
Note that this specifies which vehicles are subject to lower speed limits, not which ones are allowed to go faster.
Schedule 6 in turn refers to Regulation 2(1) of the "Motor Vehicles (Type Approval) (Great Britain) Regulations 1979" for a definition of "Motor Caravan" which it specifies as:
"A motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and their effects and which contains, as permanently installed equipment, the facilities which are reasonably necessary for enabling the vehicle to provide mobile living accommodation for its users"
(as per the excellent link above - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/clarification_on_the_definition )
I.e. nothing to do with the DVLA, or the list of requirements from the Dft.
In as far as it goes, that is clear.
Any discussion as to whether vans deserve the lower limits, whether it is fair or justified by physics, technology or ballistics is arguing for a change in the law. The point here is whether the existing law is being applied fairly.
Where it gets woolly is in the detail of what constitutes "the facilities which are reasonably necessary..." so you would expect some guidance to be applied. The previous, long-standing DVLA requirements for bed / sink / cooker would seem to be a reasonable start.
The DVLA, however, have their own, changeable set of rules for what they consider constitutes a "Motor Caravan" - they have changed at least twice to my knowledge. Our van, which was re-classified as a Motor Caravan by the DVLA, would not meet their current requirements.
The potential difficulty is that the Police appear to be using the DVLA classification as a 'de-facto' guide for speed limits where automatic technology (ANPR, etc.) is being employed. The DVLA appear to be applying a stricter definition of motor caravan than is written into law, so of course some vehicles which are legally 'motor caravans' according to the relevant section above are not registered as such with the DVLA.
In response to this, the DVLA have just said "nothing to do with us, gov" - speed limits aren't dependent on OUR body type record.
The problem here is the DVLA. IMHO they *should* be required to make their 'body type' classification consistent with the definition in the law. This would allow the police "in traffic" to establish whether something is genuinely a "Motor Caravan" and would be much more use to all concerned.
FWIW, I believe the OP's ticket has been incorrectly issued and he has grounds to dispute / appeal it as it has no legal basis.
All the above assumes you have *tried* to get the body type changed - Note that it is also an offence *not* to inform the DVLA of a change, even though you think they will ignore it!
Note that "dual purpose" vans or "living vehicles" that have things other than accommodation (race vans, horse boxes, etc.) are always goods vehicles, and cannot be motor caravans. I believe this comes down to how the vehicle is constructed, not what happens to be in it at any particular time.
FB-ATB
May be a silly q, but if blazinsaddles has “2 identical Peugeot Boxers… my work van… speed limit 60, .. a camper conversion … allowed to do 70 as reclassified as motor caravan” how does a camera know which is which when it takes a photo?
Is it linked to ANPR- sees it’s the work van doing 65 (ignoring “tolerance” for egs sake) so takes a photo, rather than takes a photo of everything doing more than 70 on a motorway?
Not stupid at all.
For all the discussion it's really simple. It has little or nothing to do with making roads safer per-se and everything to do with what can be automated.
Hence why stickers on the back and undisclosed why one van potentially carrying a bomb or one carrying school kids can do 70 whilst a lighter van with the same suspension and brakes is only safe to do 60. Adding the stickers just makes it easier to automate.
Anything else is just over thinking it.
tilly-dog
Where it gets woolly is in the detail of what constitutes “the facilities which are reasonably necessary…” so you would expect some guidance to be applied. The previous, long-standing DVLA requirements for bed / sink / cooker would seem to be a reasonable start.
Well, lots of woolliness. What's "permanent" mean?
Just to illustrate a bulkhead isn't permanent in any practical sense. 10 mins and a socket set? Maybe optimistic but you get the point, its designed to be (relatively) easy to remove. Especially in the context of a van that's been converted (Something you've taken an angle grinder and nibbler to) "permanent" seems pretty woolly.
If I was to try and make it semi permanent I'd need to weld it in somehow.
The problem here is the DVLA. IMHO they *should* be required to make their ‘body type’ classification consistent with the definition in the law.
It's one solution ...I'm just undecided is that better than requiring the police use the DVLA??? however fundamentally someone needs to get the different organisations to just agree on a definition.
Thing is there is probably a lot to consider ... (that you or I didn't think of).
randomly .. road tax? import duty? etc. etc. that also *should* be using the same definitions?
Incidentally (and much as I'd love to point a finger and say it was) this isn't a UK specific problem.
At least were I to believe the YT converted campers are treated differently in a lot of Europe as well. (I've been watching a YT channel mispronounced adventures for example)
The potential difficulty is that the Police appear to be using the DVLA classification as a ‘de-facto’ guide for speed limits where automatic technology (ANPR, etc.) is being employed.
What else could they use? The DVLA classification is, (AFAIK) the only official record of vehicle type for a number of uses, (MOT, licence categories spring to mind as well as speed limits) so if it goes to court that'll be what the judge looks to as well IMO.
"The DVLA say its a van and you were doing 70? Bring up your cuffs officer, this one is going down!"
I do agree that the system is being appallingly managed though to the detriment of van/camper drivers.
Under-reading is illegal and there are many variations which could throw out an otherwise accurate speedo. Increased tyre pressures because it’s a sunny day? Unless a speedo is taking external measurements such as a GPS lock it’s always going to over-read, the only question is by how much.
I don't think it's an "error" in that sense. I think it really is baked in.
My old Focus knew exactly what speed it was going, you could see it on the ECU via the OBD connector. Or sit at 70mph (on the speedometer) reset the computer and the average speed would show 66mph.
I checked because when being paid 45p/mile for thousands of miles a year there was a big incentive if it's a 10% difference to figure out if the odometer, trip meter or Google maps that gives the highest figure!
Turns out the odometer uses the real speed, not the displayed one so there's no difference between it and Google.
It turns out that most forces do use this ‘rule’ and of the few that don’t some go for 10% +3! A small proportion didn’t say because they didn’t want to unofficially set a new speed limit.
Correct but like I say it’s discretionary, they don’t have to use it for every case. I’d not be relying on that as a strong defence.
I think this thread was appropriately answered by Poly on page 2, which will be down to a technical argument presented to the PF/Sheriff on the applicable legislation(s), no point arguing about what ifs, or trying to work out the legislation, that will be down to the PF/Sheriff through the court system.
I think the OP has provided a good argument, but again, my opinion means nothing, it's down to someone who sees this type of argument all the time and ranging from the completely ridiculous, to the absolute fact, and has to use all evidence provided to deem whether the offence had been committed.
What else could they use? The DVLA classification … [snip].. if it goes to court that’ll be what the judge looks to as well IMO.
At the moment, each vehicle needs to be judged on its merits as there *isn’t* an “official record” of motor caravans. The DVLA themselves have said that their classification doesn’t determine speed limits.
If it goes to court, the judge will look at the law (i.e. not the DVLA).
tthew
What else could they use?
They don't *have* to use anything.
Like many technology issues sometimes it's best to wait until the tech/data is available rather than use some that you know is flawed. (Smart motorways being an example)
The downside to not doing anything is we are where we were before they started using the APNR (i.e. some vans that should be doing 60 are getting away with doing 70) ... the upside is they are not sending incorrect fines and issuing points to people who are not.
I'll admit I'm biased as a van driver ... but I don't think I'd be any different before TBH. Essentially one of these is a presumption of guilt until challenged and the other is a presumption of innocence.
…I’m just undecided is that better than requiring the police use the DVLA??? h
But the law currently defines a motor caravan differently to the DVLA so that would need a change in the legal definition of a motor caravan.
(Or, the DVLA could just start following the rules, rather than making them up!)
Why do people still reference the 10% + 2 rule? It’s discretionary not a legal requirement.
It is - or at least, was, it may have changed now - ACPO recommended guidelines. The uncomfortable truth is that if we prosecuted everyone caught doing 1mph over the limit, we'd do nothing else but process speeding tickets. Whether we should do that or not is a different argument, but we don't have the resources to do it.
I would also question whether the measurement uncertainty on cameras is small enough to enforce +1mph over the limit. If the camera reads 71mph a not insignificant portion of vehicles will be doing 70 or less (though clearly a similar portion will actually be doing more).
Matt
tillydog
But the law currently defines a motor caravan differently to the DVLA so that would need a change in the legal definition of a motor caravan.
(Or, the DVLA could just start following the rules, rather than making them up!)
Well "the law" does in one place (this one), perhaps more ... my point is it's probably got multiple definitions of a motor caravan etc. for "customs duty" or "road tax" ...
It's the job of the DVLA as an executive agency to the DoT to write the rules on vehicle registration and licensing that then get passed through parliament and applied?
From that PoV I'm more in favour of other government bodies being forced to follow the DVLA and DoT? It doesn't work great as it is but if every minister and every agency they run just makes their own definitions up it can be a lot worse.
stevextc
... It’s the job of the DVLA as an executive agency to the DoT to write the rules on vehicle registration and licensing that then get passed through parliament and applied?
No, that's backwards - it starts with laws that have been passed by parliament. As an executive agency (of the DfT), the DVLA is involved in implementing these. They don't make the law.
... if every minister and every agency they run just makes their own definitions up it can be a lot worse.
Unfortunately, that is what is happening here.
What else could they use?
With cameras, there's always going to be a difficulty unless there's a database that classifies vehicles for various different contexts, and it seems DVLA's doesn't. If somebody is actually stopped, pulled over by police, they can inspect the vehicle before deciding whether to issue a ticket.
@argee - almost certainly a JP not a Sheriff in this case. They'll be advised by a qualified solicitor - but likely to be the first time they've seen this argument, but not the first time they've seen technical points of law discussed. But very important to have your point clearly thought out in your head and copies of the relevant law, documents etc at hand. Also important to understand what is/is not admissible as evidence - worth highlighting at the Intermediate Diet any documents, photos etc that will be relied on.
It is – or at least, was, it may have changed now – ACPO recommended guidelines. The uncomfortable truth is that if we prosecuted everyone caught doing 1mph over the limit, we’d do nothing else but process speeding tickets. Whether we should do that or not is a different argument, but we don’t have the resources to do it.
That assumes that people don't very quickly learn to reduce their speed so they are actually in the limit rather than the prosecution tolerance. Processing the tickets would not really be the problem - the resources should be self-funding after all - the issue would be the increased no of people deciding to challenge 72mph in court because they refute it, because they've got in their head that up to 78 is "OK" or because they don't really don't want 3 more points and totting up.
@matt_bl -
I would also question whether the measurement uncertainty on cameras is small enough to enforce +1mph over the limit. If the camera reads 71mph a not insignificant portion of vehicles will be doing 70 or less (though clearly a similar portion will actually be doing more)
That's the main reason why there is an enforcement tolerance. Everyone caught doing 71 would try to fight it. However, the stated accuracy of at least some of the measurement devices is ±1 mph so no reason why it couldn't start at 72 at least with those devices. The guidelines go back to the radar days rather than laser measurement.
Lots of folks gave me good advice on here and several expressed an interest in the outcome so here's a wee update.
My speeding fine has been withdrawn on the basis that my van is fitted out internally for use as a camper AND it doesn't look like a panel van externally because we have clear windows in the back and tinted ones on the side. This ruling appears to have been entirely at the discretion of the team leader at the camera enforcement unit so just because that's what happened to me doesn't mean that's what would happen to others.
My take aways from this episode are:
The law on this is a genuine mess. The guy at the camera unit told me it's the single biggest draw on their time and even he couldn't really explain it because it is fundamentally contradictory.
It's worth phoning the camera unit. Emails brought me little joy but on the phone they were friendly and helpful. They have the power to withdraw the fine so there's nothing to be lost by calling them.
Although the criteria in the FOI request linked to above are all about internal features the cops are (understandably) concerned about external features, so maybe those 'camper' decals are worthwhile after all.
Even if your vehicle doesn't meet the 'motor caravan' criteria it's definitely worth letting the DVLA know about your modifications as apparently they can add a note about this to the database the cops use when checking a vehicle.
From what the camera unit guy told me something that looks like what most people think a camper should look like will usually be given the benefit of the doubt rather than them applying the stricter DVLA 'motor caravan' appearance criteria. So if you have a Transporter with windows all round and a poptop you are probably OK.
All of the above is caveated with the fact that this is just my experience and my recollection of a long conversation. IANAL.
Edit: My van is an ex British Gas Caddy Maxi, so about as far away as you can get from the DVLA definition of motor caravan in terms of external appearance at least.
@Spin well that's good news and to paraphrase it's a right mess. Question is would you get the same outcome a second time with a different team leader? The discretion thing is a touch worrying.
Question is would you get the same outcome a second time with a different team leader? The discretion thing is a touch worrying.
I guess that where the law isn't clear it has to come down to someone's discretion, whether that be a judge or a clerk.
What I definitely will be doing is getting it touch with the DVLA and telling them what we've done to the van. Even if they don't change anything I'm fairly confident that evidence of this and the current decision should ensure any future ruling goes the same way.
Good news - thanks for the update. 🙂
I’ve read all this advice about how you can decide your own speed limits based on your understanding of what constitutes a camper van contrary to what it says on the V5, and I reckon its complete BS. Do you actually know anyone who has successfully avoided a fine based on this challenge, or is this too just an internet assertion?
I was going to say I’ll eat my hat if I’m wrong, but I’ll go one better than that. If you can show indisputable proof this defence worked, £50 to a charity of your choice Spin.
As before, Dundonnel MRT please. Would you like me to upload a screen shot of the email? 🙂
I think I'd like you to up load a screenshot of the donation...
Having read this thread all the way through, with great (academic) interest, there’s one thing I think we can take away from it - whatever’s on the inside, stick some windows along the side, and plaster it with skanky decals, nobody will question it then! 😉
Oh, and Spin, congratulations on getting it overturned, and well done for your sheer, dogged, perseverance!
Congrats. Nice yo see some cash going to MRT as well.
Nice result.
I'd have thought a caddy was a car derived van anyway and been on car limits as its a touran?
As before, Dundonnel MRT please. Would you like me to upload a screen shot of the email? 🙂
I think I’d like you to up load a screenshot of the donation…
Fair enough scholar, I'll get on it. I'm sure I can find them online. I didn't get an e-mail from your @ by the way, just looked checked in for the e-mail.
Dundonnell Donation Dun.
fair play to tthew
Fist bumps all round.
😀
interesting read, but still can't see anyone came up with an answer to the 'how does the camera know not just to flash anything going over 50mph in case thats the limit for that vehicle" rather than anything doing over whatever the speed limit for the road is?
I don't recall ever being flashed by a camera at over 50mph in my car 'just in case' I wasn't allowed to drive at up to the 60 or 70mph speed limit of the road??
stevextc
Free Member
FB-ATBMay be a silly q, but if blazinsaddles has “2 identical Peugeot Boxers… my work van… speed limit 60, .. a camper conversion … allowed to do 70 as reclassified as motor caravan” how does a camera know which is which when it takes a photo?
Is it linked to ANPR- sees it’s the work van doing 65 (ignoring “tolerance” for egs sake) so takes a photo, rather than takes a photo of everything doing more than 70 on a motorway?Not stupid at all.
For all the discussion it’s really simple. It has little or nothing to do with making roads safer per-se and everything to do with what can be automated.Hence why stickers on the back and undisclosed why one van potentially carrying a bomb or one carrying school kids can do 70 whilst a lighter van with the same suspension and brakes is only safe to do 60. Adding the stickers just makes it easier to automate.
Anything else is just over thinking it
When I got done, it was by a mobile speed camera unit.
A man in the back of a van basically.
I’d have thought a caddy was a car derived van anyway and been on car limits as its a touran?
There's a weight limit too, which IIRC is 2 tonnes GVW which all Caddy Maxi will exceed.
I’d have thought a caddy was a car derived van anyway and been on car limits as its a touran?
Caddys never been a car derived van.
In the same way that only the lower 700kg) payload berlingos and partners were car derived. The 900kg ones were van vans. And current gen are all vans.
But it appears that we can just make up the rules to suit now.
+1 tthew
Dundonnell Donation Dun.
Nice one, thank you very much. 🙂
Haha, well done both of you 🙂
Great news Spin - this is a thread I'd ben reading with great anticipation of a successful result.
(Our previous camper I'd gone through the rigmarole and got our Van (Pop-Top Transporter) reclassified as Motor Caravan, so I'd been happily doing Camper Van speed limits 🙂
Our next van will be similar but the best Id achieve would be a Van with Windows - what's the point 🤣)
Re: 60 mph limit for vans
Well, in my experience it’s hardly ever enforced by police
They do enforce this a lot on the A19 around Teesside - it's a favourite stomping ground for police cars with ANPR scanners that will get you.
what’s the point
It may seem pointless, but it’s an offence *not* to inform the DVLA, even if they don’t agree with you! If you subsequently need to rely on the ‘Motor Caravan’ definition, then you can at least prove that you’ve done all you can to inform the DVLA of the correct body type. It’s only the cost of a stamp…
trail_rat
Free Member
But it appears that we can just make up the rules to suit now.
The rear suspension on the Caddy is a fantastic argument for lower speed limits for vans tbf
What a beam on leafs?