 | Home > Off Topic > O licences and commercial trailer use |
 
|
|
|
| pom Member Since: 01 Jun 2010 Location: Worcester Posts: 1343  |
nope! car derived vans are 60 on the motorway!
I think the gov just turned a blind eye to LR over the years and let them do what the like as they were kind of unique. Pom |
||
3rd Oct 2011 8:46pm |
|
| 22900013A Member Since: 23 Dec 2010 Location: Oxfordshire Posts: 3149  
|
Eh? That link clearly shows car derived vans as allowed to do 70 on a motorway. They are only limited to 60 when towing. Landrover is not a car derived van anyway, its a light commercial as its gross weight is over 2 tonnes, which is still allowed to do 70 on a motorway, as the 60 limit only applies when towing, or over 7500KG Gross. 2011 110 USW 1973 Series III 1-Ton 1972 Series III 1-Ton Cherrypicker 1969 IIA 1-Ton 1966 IIA 88" |
||
|
3rd Oct 2011 8:53pm |
|
| twopoint6khz Member Since: 18 Aug 2011 Location: North Lakes Posts: 654 
|
...so what you could be had for is doing 70 on a dual carriageway. But I think you'd have to find a policeman in a pretty bad mood to get done for that.
|
||
|
3rd Oct 2011 9:16pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17336 
|
Not sure what would happen with a camera van.
All standard Landrovers (of the Defender type from Series 1 onwards) with a wheelbase of 110" or less and prior to MY11 will legally be "dual purpose vehicles" within the definition within C&U and therefore those which are light commercials and which would otherwise be subject to the reduced speed limits applicable to such vehicles are exempted from these by virtue of the DPV status. Prior to MY11, the manufacturer's stated kerb weights for all standard vehicles (excluding 128" wb) was (as far as I know) no more than 2035kg, which is under the 2040kg max unladen weight allowable for a DPV. From MY11, several versions of Defender have kerb weights specified in excess of this, so whether or not the vehicle is legally a DPV will depend upon the unladen weight. The kerb weight includes a driver, fuel and such tools and equipment as are normally considered a part of the vehicle (jack, spare wheel, etc). The unladen weight does not. Therefore it is distinctly possible that an MY11 110" Defender will still legally be a DPV. It is highly unlikely that a 128" or Defender 130 can ever be a DPV since I imagine that the unladen weight is over 2040kg. I do not believe that there are any speed - sorry, "safety" - camera systems in the UK that automatically check the taxation class and kerb weight of the vehicle that they have photographed, which they would have to do if they were to detect a light commercial vehicle which may or may not be a DPV as distinct from the non-light commercial version of the same vehicle (for example, the difference between white van man and a camper). Most camera systems can of course differentiate between an HGV and a light vehicle, but no more than this. If you are pulled by a policeman, with or without VOSA in attendance, I suppose that you might end up in the situation where you have to prove that your unladen weight is less than 2040kg. DPV status is of course also relevent to Operator Licencing, but tax class isn't. Tax class (N1, M1) is relevant to whether or not you need a type-approved towing attachment. It is as far as I know illegal to use a NATO pintle on a modern non-N1 Defender, so tough luck if you if you own an SW and a Sankey without a rotating lunette - there is no legal way to tow it! I have for a long time now believed that every driver on the road is illegal for some obscure reason since the laws applying to motoring are sooooo complex.  |
||
|
4th Oct 2011 8:55am |
|
| leeds Member Since: 28 Dec 2009 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 8580
|
Too true. They are so complex and change so often without real prior explaination of the changes that quite often people employed by VOSA/police/DVLA etc do not understand all the implications. I know of at least one person who has got wrong information out of DVLA. I know one copper who if convinced that someone has broken motoring laws uses a catch all phrase something like arresting you on an unspecified charge to be defined later. Lets face it it is human beings trying to run a complex legal structure decided upon by politicians judges etc. Lets face it when have politicians used logic in their decision making processes?? Btendan |
||
|
4th Oct 2011 9:39am |
|
| pom Member Since: 01 Jun 2010 Location: Worcester Posts: 1343 |
This is entirely dependent on windows nothing else. Disco3 2.7 tons with lots of windows perfectly fine. Defender 90 with tin instead of windows not fine. The law on this really needs looking at as I cannot see how it can be enforced as it is now. Pom |
||
|
4th Oct 2011 11:50am |
|
| pom Member Since: 01 Jun 2010 Location: Worcester Posts: 1343 |
[quote="leeds"]
Would love to bump into this cretin and get him fired. Should you be suspected of an offence serious enough for you to be arrested by law you have to be informed of the offence and cautioned THERE AND THEN. He is exactly the reason a lot of people have zero respect for the overpaid tax collectors/traffic police. You know the ones you see on traffic programs on TV calling the chav scum mate and doing fk all. Bring on the commissioners to sort the whole rotten lot out, I see Col Tim Collins is standing to be one, exactly the caliber we need. I wouldn't image there was a risk assessment before they went into Baghdad. Pom |
||
|
4th Oct 2011 11:59am |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17336
|
No, as far as DPV status is concerned, nothing to do with windows at all. If the unladen weight of a Disco3 is more than 2040kg it cannot be a DPV. If it is a commercial variant (if there is such a thing) registered as N1, it is a light commercial vehicle and therefore subject to reduced speed limits. I do not know if there actually is such a thing as a commercial (N1) version of Disco3 because - gasp - I don't like them and they are of no interest to me whatsoever! If you were operating a Disco 3 non-commercial M1 vehicle in connection with a business then, subject to other exemptions, I believe that you would need a tacho, be subject to driver's hours regs, and, if the proposed changes to operator licencing go through, need an O licence, if your gross train weight exceeded 3500kg. A Defender 90 with or without windows will legally be a DPV and therefore enjoys the exemption from reduced speed limits (if they would otherwise be applicable) and, if the info posted earlier in this thread is correct, also benefits from the DPV-acquired exemptions to other regs. As far as I am aware, the only issue nowadays that depends on windows is the eligibility for certain vehicles to be N1 rather than M1, which has huge RFL implications and has therefore suddenly become topical. There is no connection between windows and the definition of a DPV, and there is no connection between taxation class and the definition of a DPV. My comment, which you quoted, was based on the scenario where a vehicle such as a 2011MY 110 DC or USW is stopped doing say 70mph on a dual carriageway. This is legal only if the unladen weight of said vehicle is under the 2040kg limit, since the vehicle will be an N1 Light Commercial and therefore subject to the reduced speed limits unless it falls within the definition of a dual purpose vehicle, which it will do if and only if its unladen weight is less than 2040kg. It is all far too complex, and a very grey area. However I am sure that if any attempt to sort it out was made, we would end up being even more restricted and paying more tax. |
||
|
4th Oct 2011 1:47pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17336
|
[quote="pom"]
I think that almost all arrests now are made under Section 24 (I think) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and as such the only grounds needed are that the arresting offficer has a reasonable belief that an indictable offence has been committed. I do not think, but may be wrong, that the AO has to specificy what that offence is at the time of arrest. Any coppers on here who can comment? |
||
|
4th Oct 2011 1:53pm |
|
| pom Member Since: 01 Jun 2010 Location: Worcester Posts: 1343 |
your confusing a DPV with a car derived van which is what landrovers are.
The windows are absolutely the only difference when it comes down to it. In fact the disco commerical they leave the windows in and take off the winders. I kid you not. Read the exact wording of DPV and you will see LR does apply by virtue of being a 4x4 and then is excluded as its too fat. It's a mess but from the bods I've spoke to the fact it is a car derived van trumps the rest. Oh and we done the tacho debate 
Pom |
||
|
4th Oct 2011 2:05pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17336
|
Absolutely not! I am not confusing car derived van with dual purpose vehicle. A car derived van is subject to the same reduced speed limits as a light commercial vehicle (and in fact IS a light commercial vehicle as far as the law is concerned) unless it meets a very tight exclusion specification (ie weighs next to nothing; the Ford KA commercial for example). A car derived van MAY ALSO fall into the definition of a dual purpose vehicle provided that it meets the criteria, which include that it must have an unladen weight not exceeding 2040kg and in addition must meet one of the additional criteria you listed in your post on p5 of this thread. A vehicle with an unladen weight in excess of 2040kg cannot under any circumstances be a DPV. A Landrover which weighs less than 2040kg unladen and has full or part time 4WD will always fit the DPV classification, irrespective of body type, windows, or anything else. A Landrover, such as a hardtop or DCPU, which is a light commercial or car derived van and is in the N1 tax classification will still be a DPV provided that it meets the DPV criteria, and this exempts it from, inter alia, the reduced speed limits. Any car derived van or light commercial which meets the conditions for being a DPV is exempt from the reduced speed limits which would otherwise apply. A DPV is also (at present) able to undergo a Class 4 even if it is of a type which would, if not a DPV, require a Class 7 MOT. This exemption is being withdrawn however, and it is this which triggered the last huge debate about DPVs on this forum. To use your own terminology, the DPV status trumps the Car Derived Van status, not the other way round. This gives rise to daft oddities, for example a Nissan Navara 4x4 can legally travel at a higher speed on dual carriageways and "A" roads than an otherwise identical Navara 4x2; a Transit camper can travel travel at higher speeds than a commercial Transit. Daft, but that's the way it is. |
||
|
4th Oct 2011 3:28pm |
|
| 22900013A Member Since: 23 Dec 2010 Location: Oxfordshire Posts: 3149
|
According to the link POM posted above(http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Roadsafetyadvice/DG_178867?CID=TAT&PLA=url_mon&CRE=speed_limits) , a car derived van upto 2 tonnes gross weight is NOT subject to the lower speed limits applied to light commercials. From the site -
Vans and ‘car-derived’ vans Most vans are under 7.5 tonnes laden (loaded) weight and must follow the speed limits for goods vehicles of the same weight. ‘Car-derived’ vans weigh no more than 2 tonnes when loaded and are based on car designs, for example: * Ford Fiesta van * Vauxhall Astra van * Fiat Punto van * Peugot 207 van * Renault Clio van So no way is any Landrover a car derived van - what car are they derived from??? As per my conversation with VOSA - so far as they are concerned ALL Landrovers are DPVs and thus O-licence exempt continuing into the foreseeable future. This apparently includes all Defenders, Disco, Range Rover etc. The weight limit, by their own admission, cannot be enforced as no official unladen weights actually exist for most vehicles, they only give what is bacially a kerb weight, ie including the driver etc. Anyway, as per my original posting, all DPVs will continue to be O licence exempt. Also, Landrover told me that all Defenders from 11MY onwards with the lower road fund licence cost, ARE restricted to the lower speed limits. 2011 110 USW 1973 Series III 1-Ton 1972 Series III 1-Ton Cherrypicker 1969 IIA 1-Ton 1966 IIA 88" |
||
|
4th Oct 2011 7:05pm |
|
| noworries4x4 Member Since: 24 Dec 2010 Location: Newton Abbot Devon Posts: 1195 
|
Ive been done for doing 60 on the A10 south of Kings Lynn national speed limit area i was told 90 csw taxed as lgv 50mph limit on single carrageway 90 County windows and seats taxed as plg 60 mph copper on a bike was an arse no point in arguing as i could tell he was up for making my life a missery if i kicked off.
Points gone now back to a clean licence (although i am worried about a camera van on the A127 late the other night) If everything is under control you are not going fast enough. Every Day 16 MY Discovery 4 Commercial Workshop and Escort Vehicle Weekends 07MY L322 TDV8 Vogue SE Series 1 80" 3ltr 6cyl with overdrive No Worries 4X4 |
||
|
4th Oct 2011 7:15pm |
|
| 22900013A Member Since: 23 Dec 2010 Location: Oxfordshire Posts: 3149
|
If it was taxed as LGV then I'm afraid they were right...the lower limits apply. 2011 110 USW 1973 Series III 1-Ton 1972 Series III 1-Ton Cherrypicker 1969 IIA 1-Ton 1966 IIA 88" |
||
|
4th Oct 2011 7:31pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
