Safe Speed Forums

Just got back off a holiday in the sun to be punished by my first ever speeding fine from cumbriasafetycameras.org. I was caught at 60mph on a single carriageway with the national speed limit in force. I passed my driving test in 1985 but have been too ignorant to re-read the highway code since. Didn't realise that non-car derived vans above 2 tonnes maximum laden weight could only do 50mph on single carriageway, 60mph on dual carriageway & only on a motorway can I do 70mph. Feel like going to court as highway code can't be bothered to include a 'transit van' shape icon to inform this, instead its in brackets in rule 103 under the icon of a car! bet a good lawyer could do something with this? Anybody had any experience?
Went to a link from cumbriasafetycameras to www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/signsa ... limitsigns
talks about maximun distance between consecutive speed limit signs to have the effect of making the speed limit enforceable, the road I was caught on has no speed signs for over three miles, anyone any knowledge or experience?
Finally, how does the law interperit a 'car derived van'? who desides, the manufacturer or the law? What percentage of parts have to be car parts? I also use a transit connect as well & wonder were it stands with this? Hope someone can help, millions of tradesmen (& women) must be affected!

I appreciate your frustration!

It is a STUPID! STUPID STUPID! reguation and undoubtedly dates back to a time when "Light Vans" were unstable metel boxes with poor brakes!
A Modern "Light Van" (Transit, Movano and so on) has handling, brakes and performance that would exceed those of even sportscars of 20 years ago!

(Rememebr the TG/5th gear comparison between the S type Jaguar TD and the Transit on the Nurburg ring anyone)

Enforcement of this by camera is as clear an example of "We will do you because we can and make money out of it too" as I can think of.

If any pro-cam posters out there can think of any "Safety" argument for this disparity between cars (Which include people carriers which are often Vans with windows) and Vans I would really love to hear it!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

In the case of a transit (and I imagine the Transit Connect) it's clear cut under the over 2tonne rule.

Highway code.


But yes, it's a stupid rule. And it makes no sense whatsoever to enforce it.

For instance a Citroen Berlingo 2.0HDi van comes under the van rules yet the Berlingo Multispace 2.0HDi is a car. Both have a maximum laden weight a shade over 2 tonnes.

Put windows and a matress in your transit and call it a camper van (and inform the DVLA) and magically it is safe to drive at 70mph on a dual carriageway.

As it is from what you say a National Speed Limit road there is no requirement for any speed limit repeaters provided it is unlit. No street lights and no repeaters = 60 mph.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Eh? This is a single carriageway (which is important) and a Transit, which makes it .

(But I know that you know that... )

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I hate this rule.

My day to day van is a VW Caddy which has a max laden weight of 2 tonnes, so I have to do 50 (despite ABS, TC, 4 wheel disc brakes), however it's invariably almost empty, ie about 1.4 tonnes.

If there should be a change in limit, it should be at 3.5T, tying in with other changes in goods vehicle legislation.

Yes, especially as vehicles over 3.5T now have to have 90 km/h speed limiters

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

In the early 60's my 'wife of the time' had an 850 cc Mini Van whilst I had an 850 Mini. The speed limit for the van was 30 mph on all but M'ways. Can you imagine that. Of course, everyone ignored that, police included, but it was the law nevertheless. That was before there were any speed limits at all on ordinary roads and I could drive my Mini Cooper, when I eventually got a new one in 1965, at 90+ mph along any A or B or any other road not subject to a 30, 40 or 50 limit. Those were the days!

.....but that's a van derived car.....

I agree that this is a completely ridiculous law, that was essentially not enforced until the "safety" camera partnerships started their trade.

I am afraid, that in a court case, ignorance of the law is not a defence, so unless you are willing to gamble that there was a legal technicality in your particular case, you'll just have to grit your teeth and pay up.

We all know that had you driven at the reduced 50mph speed limit for your vehicle that it would have been far more dangerous (you'd have had tailgaters, frustration overtakes and possibly road rage from other motorists who are unaware of the reduced limit), but we also all know that safety isn't the issue.

I thought the Caddy was car derived, being based on the Golf and all (who says Germans have no sense of humour?). I'm glad I no-longer drive one of these, though as I had the SDI version it was difficult to speed anyway.

I agree it's a stupid rule but in the case of the OP there isn't much that can be done about it, it's pretty clear cut, unless there happened to be a really long traffic island and you want to argue that this makes it a dual carriageway.

Doesn't matter if it's over 2 tonne GVW

My Pug 807 however is van based and over 2tonne GVW but it's a car. Many large estates (Citroen C5 for instance have a GVW over 2 tonne) but they are cars in the eyes of the law.

The law is in this case most certainly an ass.

What I don't get is why more manufacturers aren't making vans with a nominal set of rear seats so that they can be classed as cars and avoid this problem. Just unbolt the seats and throw them away. Is there any requirement for a car to have rear windows?

In fact the only occurance of this I can think of is in America years back where they charged something like 28% duty on imported pickup trucks, so Subaru bolted a couple of plastic rear-facing seats into the flatbed of their Brat pickup and called it a car, therefore only having to pay 3% duty

Your 807 is definitely a car! There is no "van" equivalent of the 807! It was designed as a car from the start and was never intended to be used as a van. It is identical to the Citroen C8 and the Fiat Ulysse. The Peugeot "Expert" (Citroen Dispatch / Fiat Scudo) is the equivalent van and is mechanically very similar to the 807 in many respects, but not the same.

Our ridiculous laws are a real headache for major multi-national manufactuers who produce a car and a van version of the same vehicle. The Peugeot Expert van is, well, er, a "van" and the Peugeot Expert "Tepee" is a car. I know of at least one manufacturer who is careful to release either the "car" version or the "van" version of the same vehicle first, depending on whether they want it to be a "car-derived van" or a "van-derived car" in the UK. Not only do they have to deal with our ridiculous speed limit legislation but also HM Customs & Excise - who treat identical vehicles differently depending on whether they are thought of as one or the other. Similarly, I think the congestion charging scheme and Richmond's parking permit scheme also treat the two differently - despite there being no technical basis for this whatsoever! One ruling I've come across (don't know if it's the same interpretation for everyone!) is that if the car version was released in the UK first, then the van version is a car-derived van. Similarly, the opposite is also true. Needless to say, we are a laughing stock amongst foreign manufacturers!

Also, as has been said, if you take the van version and load it up to it's maximum permitted weight with cooker, sink, fridge, bunks, a couple of explosive gas bottles, etc, it's safe to drive at 60 on the same roads, but if you drive it lightly loaded with some goods or tools in the back then clearly it's a deathtrap at the same speed!

We have even more fun at work. If we took a big (say) Peuegot Boxer and turned it into a camper van, it wouldn't need a speed limiter. If we kept it as a van, it would need a 56MPH speed limiter. If we put half a dozen seats in it and spaces for two wheelchairs, it would be a "car", and wouldn't need a speed limiter. If we put half a dozen seats in it and spaces for three wheelchairs, it would be a "minibus" and would need a 62MPH speed limiter! It is, of course, the same vehicle in each case! I'm told this is something to do with road safety...

Still, none of this helps the OP, unfortunately! It does cause me some wry amusement that there are still plenty (the majority?) of the general public in the UK who actually still believe that speed limits are set by intelligent experts on road safety after careful consideration and on the basis of much research!

...aye, that'll be right then!

the 330,000 mile old Merc Sprinter at work will leave my car standing , until it's oil fueled engine runs out of revs and empty probably weighs less than some cars. It's a daft law, 70mph in a modern anything isn't that fast. I used to pull over sized loads (14ft high X 12.5ft wide X 75ft long) at 70mph in a Peterbilt, no worries and have video evidence following a Pete through Nevada at 85mph , the driver didn't die, contray to what we are told.

A friend had a debate with the toll both people on the Severn bridge with his L200. They wanted him to pay commercial vehicle rates, he pointed out that there were car versions of his truck, but to no avail. Then a Disco went past and he inquired as the the price it had to pay (they are quite a bit bigger than an L200), when he was told it was a private car rate, he suggested that the go forth and multiply and turned around and hasn't used it since.

Following on from Adam's post - looking at the new Disco -thought it wasbased on the transit connect

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

You'd need to change the V5.
The body-type would need altering.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Last year I worked for a company that purposefully bought only Fiat Scudo 2.0 JTD vans for all the fitters, just to get around this idiotic "law".
They were most excellent, cruising at 90mph and still returning about 35mpg.
One of the guys used to be the race mechanic for a certain local deceased speedway rider. Strangely [i]his[i] van would cruise at just over the ton!

And the rest! The type approval number would need altering too (amongst other things) and the DVLA are supposed not to do that without an SVA test - even then they might not.