Pick-up speed limits

[openspaceman]

10 hours ago, Justme said:

Camera is the most likely way to get caught for most speed offences.

Yes this seems likely with less police out and about to follow you for 1/8th of a mile.

10 hours ago, Justme said:

 

Every car gets its plate read, compared to dvla database re speed limit for the road the camera is on.

That becomes a bit more sophisticated than I remember the original GATSO cameras which were simply triggered by speed, the actual speed was then calculated by the distance between road markings.

10 hours ago, Justme said:

 

Then speed recorded is checked against the vehicles limit. That's why people are now getting caught, before you had to brake the limit of the road to get caught.

I know this has been the subject of a FOI request that was refused on the grounds public knowledge would aid in circumventing prosecution. My feeling is  that if the vehicle exceeded a 60 on a single carriageway road then they would also check the vehicle type and prosecute for exceeding the lower limit.

10 hours ago, Justme said:

 

I dont know of any over 2040kg specific offences. Its a hard one for most to prove as few have the unladen weight on the v5 and even those that do don't use the same method to calc it.

Yes this is my feeling also, mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Treewolf]

There is no way that a camera can reliably check the speed limit applicable to a particular vehicle that may or may not be a DPV at present because there is no record on any UK/EU database of the unladen weight of vehicle, and manufacturers are not even required to provide this information (the kerb weight, which is calculated differently and is always greater than the unladen weight, is however in many cases but not all, recorded). It is, of course, feasible for non-DPVs, so cars, HGVs etc could be checked.

 

Since the definition of a Dual Purpose Vehicle is critically dependent upon the unladen weight, which is not recorded, it is impossible for any check to be made whether a vehicle which may possibly be a DPV in fact is, or is not. No automated system can at present therefore do this. Furthermore, if you took a vehicle such as a Defeder 130, perhaps fitted a winch, rollcage, chip box and tipping mechanism, you stand a very good change of taking the unladen weight over the maximum for DPV status but any check based on the VRN will be unchanged.

 

I exchanged extensive correspondence with DVSA recently on this subject, in particular the question of MOT testing for DPVs, after if became evident that many MOT Test Stations were incorrectly insisting the Defenders were subject to Class 7 MOTs, when of course they are not. DVSA confirmed that there is simply no way at present of determining the ULW of a vehicle and that this weight is not recorded. It is not even feasible to do as a roadside check on a weighbridge due to the need to drain fluids, etc. for an accurate weight.

 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

38 minutes ago, Treewolf said:

There is no way that a camera can reliably check the speed limit applicable to a particular vehicle that may or may not be a DPV at present because there is no record on any UK/EU database of the unladen weight of vehicle, and manufacturers are not even required to provide this information (the kerb weight, which is calculated differently and is always greater than the unladen weight, is however in many cases but not all, recorded). It is, of course, feasible for non-DPVs, so cars, HGVs etc could be checked.

 

Since the definition of a Dual Purpose Vehicle is critically dependent upon the unladen weight, which is not recorded, it is impossible for any check to be made whether a vehicle which may possibly be a DPV in fact is, or is not. No automated system can at present therefore do this. Furthermore, if you took a vehicle such as a Defeder 130, perhaps fitted a winch, rollcage, chip box and tipping mechanism, you stand a very good change of taking the unladen weight over the maximum for DPV status but any check based on the VRN will be unchanged.

 

I exchanged extensive correspondence with DVSA recently on this subject, in particular the question of MOT testing for DPVs, after if became evident that many MOT Test Stations were incorrectly insisting the Defenders were subject to Class 7 MOTs, when of course they are not. DVSA confirmed that there is simply no way at present of determining the ULW of a vehicle and that this weight is not recorded. It is not even feasible to do as a roadside check on a weighbridge due to the need to drain fluids, etc. for an accurate weight.

 

 

That’s a good post mate! (Eagerly awaiting ‘Justme’ giving a critique )

 

It all sounds like the conclusions of my investigations before the will to live was sucked out of me!!

 

Have you read the whole thread? (I’m not suggesting you do, unless afflicted by chronic insomnia) 

 

I think, from distant memory, the subject of MOT test class was covered earlier and recal the phrase “if, in the opinion of the tester” was the basis for determining which class MOT test would be appropriate.....  What a mess!  

[Treewolf]

I remember the start of this thread well, back then it was quite informative.  After a long near-absence due to having trouble getting used to the new forum interface (I'm afraid that I was still happier with the old, but accept the need for change) I find that the thread has (a) been revived, and (b) filled with misinformation and twaddle!

 

The bottom line is that (1) the definition of a DPV is very clear and unambiguous, (2) the "car derived van" classification has nothing whatsoever to do with the types of vehicles we use, and (3) no-one in the history of civilisation appears (yet) to have been incorrectly charged with exceeding the N1 speed limits in a DPV, despite the fact that everyone knows someone whose auntie's landlord's cousin was definitely done for it, also (4) windows, whether absent or present have nothing whatsoever to do with it, and finally (5) discussing it ad nauseam doesn't alter the facts that are well established and have been for a long time, it just makes me wonder why I have stirred a can of worms again!

 

 

[Steve Bullman]

Thanks for posting, I’m sure navigating the forum will come to you pretty quick if you stick with it for a few days

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Welcome back TW! 

 

I’ll only take issue with (1)

 

Agreed, the DEFINITION of a DPV is clearly defined and published.   The original point of the thread was not to take issue with that definition, which is easily understood, but rather to express a frustration that it seemed, and still does, impossible to extract from the manufacturer of a new vehicle, by the provision of reliable data, where that vehicle sits within the parameters of the known definition of a DPV and, by extension, which, if any, speed and testing implications might apply....

 

I couldn’t get to the bottom of that, on the face of it, fairly simple question. ?

[donnk]

disco 4 over 2.4 tons empty. max speed limits. 

 

blank the back windows and now it cant go as fast.

 

Windows setting speed limits really is bonkers. I drive car speeds in my disco 4 comm, been past scamera vans/fixed cams at normal car speeds never had a ticket.

 

Would fight it in court if I did, have them explain why windows should effect my vehicles speed limit.

 

 

[Treewolf]

No. Take a Disco 4 that has been EWVA type-approved as a category M passenger vehicle and it has car speed limits. Blank its windows and it still has car speed limits.

 

Take a Disco 4 commercial that has been EWVA type approved as a category N light goods vehicle and it has light goods speed limits. Cut windows into the back and it still has light goods speed limits.

 

Neither vehicle is a Dual Purpose Vehicle, and the windows are not relevant.

 

[donnk]

29 minutes ago, Treewolf said:

No. Take a Disco 4 that has been EWVA type-approved as a category M passenger vehicle and it has car speed limits. Blank its windows and it still has car speed limits.

 

Take a Disco 4 commercial that has been EWVA type approved as a category N light goods vehicle and it has light goods speed limits. Cut windows into the back and it still has light goods speed limits.

 

Neither vehicle is a Dual Purpose Vehicle, and the windows are not relevant.

 

paperwork wise im sure your right, in reality the motors - apart from window blanks - are the same. in fact the commercial is a tad lighter.

[Justme]

On 1/22/2018 at 10:38, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

That’s a good post mate! (Eagerly awaiting ‘Justme’ giving a critique )

 

It all sounds like the conclusions of my investigations before the will to live was sucked out of me!!

 

Have you read the whole thread? (I’m not suggesting you do, unless afflicted by chronic insomnia) 

 

I think, from distant memory, the subject of MOT test class was covered earlier and recal the phrase “if, in the opinion of the tester” was the basis for determining which class MOT test would be appropriate.....  What a mess!  

Re DPV I agree.

There is no reliable method. 

 

Re vehicle class its wrong. passenger vehicle, CDV, Van, C1, C, D1, D etc etc can all be identified via the DVLA database.

 

Vans get nicked at sub 60 so have not triggered the 60 limit.