Forum menu
Just checking 👍
Spin - you can try writing to the camera enforcement unit and explaining - if they think they’ve wrongly identified the limit that applies to your vehicle they will take no further action. However I’d say that’s far from guaranteed.
Otherwise you don’t need to do anything to “challenge” it. You simply do nothing and the case will most likely be referred the PF. You may get another offer to pay £100/3pts from the fiscal, or they may proceed directly to court. Ordinarily they have six months to start proceedings in court, however for most summary cases that is extended to 12 months due to the covid backlog. They frequently take most of the six months - then you will get a citation with the option to plead guilty (or not) by letter. If you plead not guilty an intermediate diet and trial diet will be set, probably about 6 months in the future based on current backlogs. Don’t be surprised if the trial gets put adjourned so could be two years from now - I say this not to encourage you to plead guilty but to suggest it really is worth the effort asking the camera unit to consider it; and to make sure you gather any evidence about the nature of the van etc - E.g. you might want to take photographs, video, have someone else witness you do that etc - especially if you might sell or modify the van at all.
Ordinarily I’d say someone who is able to have a sensible and civil argument here would be able to defend themselves, but I’d consider if you really want to win on a technical argument like this at least talking to a solicitor used to dealing road traffic in that local court, in fact if they get the point they may be able to have a chat with the fiscal and get the case dropped at the first or intermediate diet.
The good news in Scotland is you won’t have to pay prosecution costs if found guilty, the bad news is if found not guilty you don’t get any contribution to your costs.
www.safetycameras.gov.scot/contact
Well, this is the damnedest thing I've read in days.
So it doesn't matter whether you're hauling people or concrete, the speed limit is determined by what your van looks like? Swap a couple of steel panels out for glass and whack a couple of 'Mystery Machine' stickers on the sides and hey, in the eye of the law it's suddenly perfectly safe to drive 10mph faster?
Spin, I admire your optimism and I genuinely hope this works out for you. But I do rather worry that it's the 'having right of way' argument on a cycle when you've just been left-hooked. It's crackers that the DVLA won't reclassify your vehicle because surely that then would be demonstrable proof, "sorry m'lud but I think you'll find that it says on the V5..." What's the point of even having a classification if it's legally meaningless?
Unless you have a fixed high top roof, pop top doesn’t count, then you have pretty much zero chance of getting it re classified to camper van on the V5.
My transporter (factory combi) is classed as an M1 on the V5, so car speed limits apply. Most newer combi vans are now N1 even with 6 seats.
Thanks for that poly. I found contact details for the camera enforcement unit and emailed them and I'll follow it up with a letter with photographic evidence which was plan A anyway.
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.
Oh, so speed limits should be determined by the ability to slow down and/or their weight?
If that's the case then either there are a lot of cars on the road that need lower limits or those of us with 'quality' cars ought to be allowed higher limits...
And electric cars, since they often weigh more than 'normal' cars (our friends' Audi is 2.7 tonne!), are they getting lower limits?
As for the OP, if the fixed penalty includes Points then I'd also fight it, but if it's just the cash - is it really worth it, and what's the chance of actually winning?
@intheborders - all fixed penalties in Scotland for speeding are £100 & 3 penalty points.
@spin - I should have said - I assume as you have a COoFP you have already complied with the S172 requirement to name the driver? If not you MUST do this within 28 days of the notice - otherwise you end up with far bigger problem. usually the NIP/S172 request are one letter then the COoFP comes a week or two later - but some English forces do combine the S172 and an offer in one. AFAIK police Scotland don’t do that but if they think it’s a way to save the cost of a stamp they might have started!
As for the OP, if the fixed penalty includes Points then I’d also fight it, but if it’s just the cash – is it really worth it, and what’s the chance of actually winning?
Not just points, but also notifying insurer and probably increased premium. If it were me, I'd also feel I had drive to the lower speed limit in future if I'd accepted it.
No, reading an internet blog of a secondhand story definitely isn’t proof, this is exactly the kind of ‘research’ I don’t subscribe to. It’ll have to be a photo of your discharge letter or whatever, with personal details redacted of course, when you win.
For most ways for this to end there is no written proof sent to spin - he could jump through hoops to get it but most ways of it being dropped don’t result in a letter.
So it doesn’t matter whether you’re hauling people or concrete, the speed limit is determined by what your van looks like?
No there is a set of criteria inside and out for the conversion to meet but even where this is demonstrated DVLA are classifying as van with windows. They state this is how it appears externally and that is the purpose of the V5 classification. They have taken what should be a factual assessment of meeting criteria and added an arbitrary opinion to that which is not set out in their evaluation criteria.
Their view is that V5 classification is not to reflect what the vehicle is and that speed limits are not based on V5 classification. So they are leaving it to individuals effectively to assess whether they feel that they meet the requirements.
but is able to do 80-90 with complete impunity on a motorway.
Because dual carriageways can be very different to motorways and decidedly more dangerous?
Because dual carriageways can be very different to motorways and decidedly more dangerous?
but alot safer if you have a sink, table, high top and stickers on the outside?
ive been reading about the rules and it is so grey. So with the DVLA rules, you can have a 'dual purpose' vehicle as they put it, that meets all the criteria, but still is subject to the lower speeds because it is a van with windows. So basically, unless you have a factory conversion, all campervans must stick to the lower limits.
@intheborders – all fixed penalties in Scotland for speeding are £100 & 3 penalty points.
I only asked as the OP hadn't mentioned Points, and these for me are the worse bit.
Not just points, but also notifying insurer and probably increased premium. If it were me, I’d also feel I had drive to the lower speed limit in future if I’d accepted it.
3 points shouldn't impact the OP, but the last point is something I hadn't considered - definitely worth appealing IMO.
if you have a sink, table, high top and stickers on the outside?
Speed limits won't be your problem with that lot on the outside
I have also heard that you can argue the toss if you can demonstrate your van is being used as a camper, even if the DVLA wont reclassify it (which they wont do anymore)
I think technically, your speed limit on a motorhome varies depending on what cargo is on board.
Motorhoming: 70.
Carrying goods for exhibition or sale: 60.
The classification system isnt fit for purpose.
I bought a minibus, 70mph upper limit, but a 62mph speed limiter (go figure)
Pulled some seats and made it into a 7 seater day van.
DVLA reclassed it as "Private Light Goods" So i can have the limiter removed (which ive done)
so now i THINK i can drive at 70, as its Private Light Goods, not just Light Goods.
Except now im worried im gonna get pulled because from the outside (and the sticker on the sunvisor) it looks like its limited to 62mph, but will happily cruise along at 70.
Only here out of a general interest - but that FOI link is brilliantly clear, thanks for posting 🙂
FOI request is brilliantly clear in its acknowledgment of a broken system between the people who classify vehicles, the people who define transport policy and the people who enforce it. Shower of shit.
It is a weird aspect to the law that a van can only do 60 legally on a dual carriageway, which is actively enforced by the police
Well, in my experience it's hardly ever enforced by police.
But perhaps I've only got done the once as my van is a six-seater with windows, and therefore a dual-purpose vehicle.
This is a decent explainer:
https://www.parkers.co.uk/vans-pickups/advice/speed-limits/
so now i THINK i can drive at 70, as its Private Light Goods,
You can’t. Limit is still 60 unless it’s a car derived van.
I will agree however that it’s all a load of cobblers as I have 2 identical Peugeot Boxers. 1 is my work van, loaded with tools weighs 2.5t speed limit 60, the other is a camper conversion, weighs 3t on the road and is allowed to do 70 as reclassified as motor caravan.
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.
I'd agree that the speed limits need a review, it's ridiculous that a 'camper' with a pile of nailed together plywood, a gas bottle etc can rattle down the road at 70mph, get them all down to 50, better for the environment too 😉
Something's just occurred to me.
If you were pinged on a dual carriageway after thinking the limit was 70 when it's 60 for your vehicle classification... what speed were you doing? 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?
I thought it might be this lady running really really fast, and not just walking in a bus lane...
I am disapoint.. (but an interesting thread!)
DrP
If you were pinged on a dual carriageway after thinking the limit was 70 when it’s 60 for your vehicle classification… what speed were you doing? 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?
Not every vehicle speedo under reads by 5mph. Mine is about 2mph (an indicated 70 is 68mph)
If we apply the 10% + 2 then I guess 68mph is the lowest speed you would get done for in a 60
OP write back and inform them they have issued the notice in error. They have used the best information they had available but the classification on the V5 does not determine the speed. The DVLA have said exactly this. Send photos of the van and the fine should be cancelled.
1 success and a reversal for that force doesn't make a legal precedent.
This is also Scotland so a other factors could be different.
It amazes me how many people don't know of the reduced limit in vans
It is a weird aspect to the law that a van can only do 60 legally on a dual carriageway, which is actively enforced by the police, but is able to do 80-90 with complete impunity on a motorway.
1. is it that weird? DCWs can have crossing traffic, right turns, cyclists, horses, busses stopping to pick up passengers, pedestrians crossing, roundabouts etc. Motorways have none of that.
2. Police Scotland will certainly actively enforce anyone doing 80-90 on a motorway (and even high 70s).
You don't need to go to court, give them a call to confirm where to send it then supply all the relevant information and photos to support and they may well cancel.
Not every vehicle speedo under reads by 5mph. Mine is about 2mph (an indicated 70 is 68mph)
That may well be so, but not many don't (IME, etc).
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.
Does a Range Rover at over 3T just go through normal can MoT.
They aren't over 3T, not unladen anyways, more like 2.6T
That may well be so, but not many don’t (IME, etc).
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.
My car (BMW) has the option of BMW speed or true speed. Looks to be about 2-3 mph difference.
The difference between my tom-tom and speedo is around 7-9mph at 70, Transit.
Also, you can't use the tom-tom as the speedo to get through an MOT when the proper one isn't working 🤣
Also police Scotland don't publish the tolerance....
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)