Dual liner speed limit grey area
Discussion
village idiot said:
I am currently awaiting an answer from Hampshire constabulary on this very question. The dvla couldn't help as they have no classification for 'dual purpose vehicle'.
Did you write to a particular department? I quite fancy a Sport X Vito, know I need one (now) with a rear window. Am not a reckless speeder, but do want to know for definate before I make a purchase. We've already been "caught out" swapping a Vauxhall Combo for a Ford Connect..
Just like to make a correction to something I wrote earlier in the thread, which doesn't affect the essence of anything written by myself or SS2 but here goes.
However I saw one yesterday that didn't have the rear window, quite an old one admittedly, and not sure of the spec but clearly they do exist.
So as always the devil is in the detail. I think the OP says his has glass all round, those were the words.
It still doesn't alter the issue, as before, that DVLA classification on the V5C counts for nothing, and interesting that someone posted DVLA don't have a dpv classification.
So it stays as if the vehicle meets the detail description for dpv as posted page1 in every point, then the higher 'car' limits apply and not the lower 'van' limits.
Full stop.
FiF earlier said:
Vito Dualiner is definitely a dual purpose vehicle imo.
This was based on the experience I had when looking st these some time back, and every one I looked at, had the rear window in the tailgate. Can't see an option on the options or price list to have/not have rear glass, maybe it's something in the detail but the brochure doesn't show it, and they don't seem to have a configure your own option on the website. Plus had a look online and again today at one of the dealers I looked at and every single one they have on sale has the rear window.However I saw one yesterday that didn't have the rear window, quite an old one admittedly, and not sure of the spec but clearly they do exist.
So as always the devil is in the detail. I think the OP says his has glass all round, those were the words.
It still doesn't alter the issue, as before, that DVLA classification on the V5C counts for nothing, and interesting that someone posted DVLA don't have a dpv classification.
So it stays as if the vehicle meets the detail description for dpv as posted page1 in every point, then the higher 'car' limits apply and not the lower 'van' limits.
Full stop.
The glazed rear window is a factory option. W78 + F61. £192 + VAT, including heated rear window, wash wipe system and rear view mirror.
Click the video on Point 4 and you can just about see the blind rear.
https://www.vitosport.co.uk/van.php#dualiner
These vans have nothing to do with me - just results from a quick Google search.
http://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/Mercedes-Vito-SportX-...
http://www.trade-vehicles.co.uk/used-vans/mercedes...
http://www.speedmonkey.co.uk/2013/03/driven-merced...
http://www.favcars.com/mercedes-benz-vito-sport-x-...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mercedes-Benz-VITO-Sport...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2011-61-Mercedes-Benz-Vi...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mercedes-Benz-VITO-Sport...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mercedes-Benz-Merc-VITO-...
The guidance from MBUK that I referred to earlier states that the speed limits are 50/60/70 for van & Dualiner, and 60/70/70 for Traveliner. It provides www.gov.uk/speedlimits as a reference but they make no mention of Dual-Purpose Vehicles, differences according to rear windows present or not, 4x4 or anything else that will vary these limits.
The sections on tax, VAT and BiK make plain that the customer must seek their own professional advice regarding the treatment for these matters because the "use" of the vehicle can impact these areas, not just the type approval or registration class of the vehicle. There is no such disclaimer on MOTs or Speed Limits.
It confirms that Vito van and Dualiner are type-approved as N1 Goods Carrying vehicles and sit in tax class 39 for VED, and Class 4 for MoT testing, while the Traveliner and the Viano are both M1 Passenger Carrying vehicles and sit in tax classes 48/49 and Class 4/4a/5/5a for MoT. Once a vehicle has been constructed by the manufacturer the base Type Approval is fixed as a commercial vehicle or as a car.
Click the video on Point 4 and you can just about see the blind rear.
https://www.vitosport.co.uk/van.php#dualiner
These vans have nothing to do with me - just results from a quick Google search.
http://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/Mercedes-Vito-SportX-...
http://www.trade-vehicles.co.uk/used-vans/mercedes...
http://www.speedmonkey.co.uk/2013/03/driven-merced...
http://www.favcars.com/mercedes-benz-vito-sport-x-...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mercedes-Benz-VITO-Sport...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2011-61-Mercedes-Benz-Vi...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mercedes-Benz-VITO-Sport...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mercedes-Benz-Merc-VITO-...
The guidance from MBUK that I referred to earlier states that the speed limits are 50/60/70 for van & Dualiner, and 60/70/70 for Traveliner. It provides www.gov.uk/speedlimits as a reference but they make no mention of Dual-Purpose Vehicles, differences according to rear windows present or not, 4x4 or anything else that will vary these limits.
The sections on tax, VAT and BiK make plain that the customer must seek their own professional advice regarding the treatment for these matters because the "use" of the vehicle can impact these areas, not just the type approval or registration class of the vehicle. There is no such disclaimer on MOTs or Speed Limits.
It confirms that Vito van and Dualiner are type-approved as N1 Goods Carrying vehicles and sit in tax class 39 for VED, and Class 4 for MoT testing, while the Traveliner and the Viano are both M1 Passenger Carrying vehicles and sit in tax classes 48/49 and Class 4/4a/5/5a for MoT. Once a vehicle has been constructed by the manufacturer the base Type Approval is fixed as a commercial vehicle or as a car.
s3fella said:
SS2. said:
The definition of a DPV is clear and unambiguous.
It's straightforward for the OP to review these and decide whether or not his vehicle meets the definition and, in turn, whether special speed limits do or do not apply.
If it is clear an unambiguous, why does the op have coppers telling him it is 60 on a dual carriageway, a speeding ticket from a camera unit, and even the Merc Sales guy on here saying these are sold as 'vans' subject to the lower limits? It's straightforward for the OP to review these and decide whether or not his vehicle meets the definition and, in turn, whether special speed limits do or do not apply.
The issue is that the OP has already decided that it is a car or dpv, but others, including the authorities seem to think otherwise.
As some others have suggested,treat is as a van and it would seem to take the whole issue away, it's what I do with mine and I dint notice it slows me down to any extent, tbh.
Thanks to GoneAnon for links to some that show the non glazed rear. Which shows they do exist.
I'll not bother with the links but I checked out rossetts.co.uk and at time of writing every single dualiner they have has the rear window, wiper etc.
Interested to hear from the enforcement crowd why a £192+vat option or lack of suddenly makes a vehicle so hideously dangerous that a whole new set of speed limits apply. Surely this nonsense proves the argument that the rules need to be revised.
I'll not bother with the links but I checked out rossetts.co.uk and at time of writing every single dualiner they have has the rear window, wiper etc.
Interested to hear from the enforcement crowd why a £192+vat option or lack of suddenly makes a vehicle so hideously dangerous that a whole new set of speed limits apply. Surely this nonsense proves the argument that the rules need to be revised.
FiF said:
Thanks to GoneAnon for links to some that show the non glazed rear. Which shows they do exist.
I'll not bother with the links but I checked out rossetts.co.uk and at time of writing every single dualiner they have has the rear window, wiper etc.
Interested to hear from the enforcement crowd why a £192+vat option or lack of suddenly makes a vehicle so hideously dangerous that a whole new set of speed limits apply. Surely this nonsense proves the argument that the rules need to be revised.
As ever the rules in this country tend to be nonesense.I'll not bother with the links but I checked out rossetts.co.uk and at time of writing every single dualiner they have has the rear window, wiper etc.
Interested to hear from the enforcement crowd why a £192+vat option or lack of suddenly makes a vehicle so hideously dangerous that a whole new set of speed limits apply. Surely this nonsense proves the argument that the rules need to be revised.
I know you like the van stuff, from an interested perspective, have you seen my thread on the GB Domestic rules, where without any EU rules in place the British have decided that the driver of a van of less than 3.5 tons has less of a duty cycle than those over 3.5 tons covered by EU legislation ?
With these feet said:
Im wondering where it puts my Transit, T350 minibus with 9 seats removed - 6 seats and a table inside and has been re-registered PLG. Would one assume it now comes under "dual purpose" ie, has glass and 2 rows of 3 seats??
At the Dartford crossing I get charged the same as a car.
it's a car with a very large boot. At the Dartford crossing I get charged the same as a car.
wessexrfc said:
Could you explain why, as this was their reasoning, thanks.
I expect since the ticket office are using this as their defence you drop the very long explanation of what a dual purpose van is in front of your average jp and I used to know one and met some others. Mostly retired teachers who think the police not nearly never wrong you will struggle without a very very good legal defence and explanation of the defence.SS2. said:
Why ? Assuming his vehicle met the DPV criteria, then the relevant legislation would provide both.
Because the OP has challenged this defence with the central ticket office and they have refereed to it being LGV classed vehicle I seriously doubt the private individual walking into a court is going to get the magistrates on his side with the DPV argument. You work on the basis that most jp's dont trust the local police ticket offices judgement? It would appear that MBUK Class the Dual Liner as a van and travel liner as a people carrier.
jbsportstech said:
Because the OP has challenged this defence with the central ticket office and they have refereed to it being LGV classed vehicle I seriously doubt the private individual walking into a court is going to get the magistrates on his side with the DPV argument. You work on the basis that most jp's dont trust the local police ticket offices judgement?
No, I work on the basis that magistrates are capable of reading plain English. That's why I do not share your opinion.jbsportstech said:
It would appear that MBUK Class the Dual Liner as a van and travel liner as a people carrier.
Good for them, albeit utterly irrelevant what they think..Well the answer to the MBUK issue is that despite their literature showing the vehicle with a rear window in the sketches as linked that is in reality a £192 +vat option.
Therefore in standard base spec the vehicle would be subject to van limits.
However if that window is in place with all the other things that define what is a dpv in law then the vehicle is subject to those for a dpv <2040 kgs ulw.
You may well be correct that in the event it goes to court it may well be difficult to convince a bench consisting of well meaning do gooders but it shouldn't be difficult to persuade a properly legally qualified judge. Let's face it every day of the week lay magistrates fall for the line of "I had to do x in order to catch you up" as being incontrovertible proof that the defendant was travelling at x or more.
It doesn't alter the law that nothing matters in this case of what dvla think or the manufacturer's arse covering advice, does the vehicle conform in all respects to the definition in construction and use regulations or not. If it does then dpv. Ends.
Therefore in standard base spec the vehicle would be subject to van limits.
However if that window is in place with all the other things that define what is a dpv in law then the vehicle is subject to those for a dpv <2040 kgs ulw.
You may well be correct that in the event it goes to court it may well be difficult to convince a bench consisting of well meaning do gooders but it shouldn't be difficult to persuade a properly legally qualified judge. Let's face it every day of the week lay magistrates fall for the line of "I had to do x in order to catch you up" as being incontrovertible proof that the defendant was travelling at x or more.
It doesn't alter the law that nothing matters in this case of what dvla think or the manufacturer's arse covering advice, does the vehicle conform in all respects to the definition in construction and use regulations or not. If it does then dpv. Ends.
FiF said:
<snip>
You may well be correct that in the event it goes to court it may well be difficult to convince a bench consisting of well meaning do gooders but it shouldn't be difficult to persuade a properly legally qualified judge. Let's face it every day of the week lay magistrates fall for the line of "I had to do x in order to catch you up" as being incontrovertible proof that the defendant was travelling at x or more.
I think you are making a brave leap there You may well be correct that in the event it goes to court it may well be difficult to convince a bench consisting of well meaning do gooders but it shouldn't be difficult to persuade a properly legally qualified judge. Let's face it every day of the week lay magistrates fall for the line of "I had to do x in order to catch you up" as being incontrovertible proof that the defendant was travelling at x or more.
do you actually have proof of the assetion that a Police officer's trestimony aobut his/her closing speed has lead to a conviction of a driver for that speed rather than simply for a speeding or a later determined speed from a time and distance device
Also the Mag's clerk ( a qualified lawyer ) would likely advise the bench if the issue
also if a stipe was present either sitting alone wor with JPs as wingmen ...
FiF said:
It doesn't alter the law that nothing matters in this case of what dvla think or the manufacturer's arse covering advice, does the vehicle conform in all respects to the definition in construction and use regulations or not. If it does then dpv. Ends.
it;s yet another thing that needs there to be a big tidy up of vehicle legislation in the UK across RTA, RSA, RTRA, C+U , RVLR and various pieces of tax / duty / VAT legislation there are a number of areas which cause confusion
mph1977 said:
FiF said:
<snip>
You may well be correct that in the event it goes to court it may well be difficult to convince a bench consisting of well meaning do gooders but it shouldn't be difficult to persuade a properly legally qualified judge. Let's face it every day of the week lay magistrates fall for th
e line of "I had to do x in order to catch you up" as being incontrovertible proof that the defendant was travelling at x or more.
I think you are making a brave leap there You may well be correct that in the event it goes to court it may well be difficult to convince a bench consisting of well meaning do gooders but it shouldn't be difficult to persuade a properly legally qualified judge. Let's face it every day of the week lay magistrates fall for th
e line of "I had to do x in order to catch you up" as being incontrovertible proof that the defendant was travelling at x or more.
do you actually have proof of the assetion that a Police officer's trestimony aobut his/her closing speed has lead to a conviction of a driver for that speed rather than simply for a speeding or a later determined speed from a time and distance device
Also the Mag's clerk ( a qualified lawyer ) would likely advise the bench if the issue
also if a stipe was present either sitting alone wor with JPs as wingmen ...
FiF said:
It doesn't alter the law that nothing matters in this case of what dvla think or the manufacturer's arse covering advice, does the vehicle conform in all respects to the definition in construction and use regulations or not. If it does then dpv. Ends.
it;s yet another thing that needs there to be a big tidy up of vehicle legislation in the UK across RTA, RSA, RTRA, C+U , RVLR and various pieces of tax / duty / VAT legislation there are a number of areas which cause confusion
Second part re legislation should be sorted. Completely agree.
First part. Funny you should ask that. Many years ago I Was navigating on a plot and bash regularity road rally. We were seeded no1 and first car on the road.
We got stopped and the police used that very line. We had evidence of my calculations from the halda exactly how fast we were going albeit of course a series of rolling averages but nevertheless it was possible to present a case.
They had no evidence of actual speed of the vehicle by pacing or vascar or anything. It was simply the we had to do x etc.
When the mags came back and announced case proven the court gasped and the clerk gave a shake of his head.
One of the coppers sat at the back with me turned and said he was amazed as he thought my evidence had stuffed their's into next week. His words.
The driver was facing totting up ban but escaped that so thought he'd effectively had a win.
The most charitable interpretation I can put on things was that it was a case of mistaken identity. The police claimed to have chased given up and diverted to later in the route to set up a road block. Considering the route the event took there was massive question about how exactly they got to the point they blocked the road. At no point were we chased by anyone.
The most uncharitable interpretation is that they just decided to do someone and first car on the road is the obvious point to send a message. Then came up with a load of old fanny in evidence.
The point is the police were believed totally, we were not at all. Even references to blue book regs and the three quarter time rules and penalties for infringing that were just discounted totally, ie given the type and rules of the rally there was no need nor incentive to do the speeds alleged.
FiF said:
It doesn't alter the law that nothing matters in this case of what dvla think or the manufacturer's arse covering advice, does the vehicle conform in all respects to the definition in construction and use regulations or not. If it does then dpv. Ends.
Is it likely or not, that the database used by machines to enforce speed are going to know all these subtle nuances of ramifications of optional extras? I think unlikely.
jellypig said:
Is it likely or not, that the database used by machines to enforce speed are going to know all these subtle nuances of ramifications of optional extras?
I think unlikely.
If by machines you are referring to the automatons sitting at a computer in the ticket processing office they can't tell the difference between a Glasgow milk float and a saloon car, or to refer to a recent thread the vehicle which was obviously speeding vs the one which was obviously not as evidenced by the road markings. I think unlikely.
Clearly they just rely on the DVLA categorisation and the data of registration eg unladen weight etc. The DVLA categorisation that can't and doesn't have the possibility to hold a class of vehicle specifically mentioned in the regulations.
More of a dog's breakfast than a tipper lorry load of kibble accidentally dropped in lane 1 of the motorway.
wessexrfc said:
Found the flashing lights abit ott and the sort of thing that doesn't do them any favours (small man syndrome). A simple toot of the horn as passing and some finger waving would've been suffice. I was a bit irritated so felt a response was required. It seems there is no simple answer.............
I had a moment of plod acting all 'small man syndrome'.On a dual carriageway, following a car doing 65 whilst overtaking a lorry. Plod comes up behind me with no blue lights on who I'd passed in a lay by a mile earlier - so he would have to have been going at some serious pace to catch up that quick. Plod sits less than 2 seconds behind me. Car in front finishes over take manoeuvre and pulls in. I accelerate up to 70 and overtake the car that's just pulled in. Plod still up my arse and starts flashing me. If I pulled in at the point he started flashing, I'd have cut up the car I was overtaking. I also needed to turn right into a slip road to exit the dual carriageway within the next quarter mile so put my indicator on to make the point to the plod. Yet he still continues to sit right up my arse giving me no braking room to slow in time for the rather short slip road. Bell end.
Boydie88 said:
wessexrfc said:
Found the flashing lights abit ott and the sort of thing that doesn't do them any favours (small man syndrome). A simple toot of the horn as passing and some finger waving would've been suffice. I was a bit irritated so felt a response was required. It seems there is no simple answer.............
I had a moment of plod acting all 'small man syndrome'.On a dual carriageway, following a car doing 65 whilst overtaking a lorry. Plod comes up behind me with no blue lights on who I'd passed in a lay by a mile earlier - so he would have to have been going at some serious pace to catch up that quick. Plod sits less than 2 seconds behind me. Car in front finishes over take manoeuvre and pulls in. I accelerate up to 70 and overtake the car that's just pulled in. Plod still up my arse and starts flashing me. If I pulled in at the point he started flashing, I'd have cut up the car I was overtaking. I also needed to turn right into a slip road to exit the dual carriageway within the next quarter mile so put my indicator on to make the point to the plod. Yet he still continues to sit right up my arse giving me no braking room to slow in time for the rather short slip road. Bell end.
the fact you accelerated to overtake AFTER you were signalled to stop rather than maintaining or reducing speed is behaviour which suggests you may be liable to fail to stop ...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff