Van drivers, did you know that......

[nilagin]

They do forewarn people, but invariably if you don't read newspapers/watch tv/listen to the radio/go on the internet/talk to other human beings then there is still the chance you won't know about the impending change.

Ignorance still isn't an excuse.


Unless you're a police officer.

I don't buy or read newspapers, I don't watch the news on TV, I seldom listen to the radio, it's on in the background when I'm in the gym, but it's just background noise, chances are the websites or forums I go on, won't have news on updates, this thread is about a 7 year old update which is proof in point. The only reason I was already aware of it was because a workmate was caught out by it several years ago, he was also unaware upto when he got caught. So in effect word of mouth is the only one really which has been effective, but hardly reliable though is it.
Even if you go on the govt site for foriegn tourists it just outlays fairly basic rules and they are more likely to unwittingly fall foul of the law.
Nowhere in the rules for British motorists, as I posted above, does it advise to periodically check for updates. Surely it should be one of the first things it tells you.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I don't buy or read newspapers, I don't watch the news on TV, I seldom listen to the radio, it's on in the background when I'm in the gym, but it's just background noise, chances are the websites or forums I go on, won't have news on updates, this thread is about a 7 year old update which is proof in point. The only reason I was already aware of it was because a workmate was caught out by it several years ago, he was also unaware upto when he got caught. So in effect word of mouth is the only one really which has been effective, but hardly reliable though is it.
Even if you go on the govt site for foriegn tourists it just outlays fairly basic rules and they are more likely to unwittingly fall foul of the law.
Nowhere in the rules for British motorists, as I posted above, does it advise to periodically check for updates. Surely it should be one of the first things it tells you.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, which part of that are you struggling with?

 

[easylife]

I got done in Scotland 3 years ago 62 mph in a 60 limit, I wrote off as I felt hard done by as I had had a clean licence for 47years, they then informed me that as I was driving one of my vans, a Ford Connect, and it is classed as a van, and the limit is 50 in a 60 zone, I never knew about this and had done over 400,000 miles in the Connects, before the Connects, I had Escorts, and they are classed as cars with speed limits, I now have moved to Citreon Bellingo, this is also classed as a car,
the Lothian and Borders police did sent me a sticker for my sun visor with the limits on, it only cost me 3 point and £60 but Ignorance is no excuse when this subject comes up, most people I tell, do not believe this law excists, and a few police I have spoke to say they it is mostly overlooked with even Transit, Sprinter type vans.

 

[nilagin]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, which part of that are you struggling with?

I'm not struggling with that, what I am struggling with, is it's ok for them not to give sufficient notification leaving countless people unaware of changes.
It's not like parking up a lorry with the backdoors open full of goods and waiting to arrest people when they try to nick it as everyone knows it's against the law to steal.
Not eveyone knows about van speed limits or that motorists are supposed to keep checking for updates in motoring law.
I also wasn't aware, until today, that there are to be changes in what you are allowed to tow.
Presuming these changes are in the interest of safety and saving lives, they could do a better job of keeping everyone informed rather than just hoping.
If you were to come into my place of work, you would have to watch a safety video, before you are allowed in, then once inside, the place is full of signs advising of safety precautions, do's and dont's etc. So much so, it's over the top, but no one would be in any doubt of what is expected of them. No reason why the govt. couldn't do even a tenth of that, but they don't.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I'm not struggling with that, what I am struggling with, is it's ok for them not to give sufficient notification leaving countless people unaware of changes.
It's not like parking up a lorry with the backdoors open full of goods and waiting to arrest people when they try to nick it as everyone knows it's against the law to steal.
Not eveyone knows about van speed limits or that motorists are supposed to keep checking for updates in motoring law.
I also wasn't aware, until today, that there are to be changes in what you are allowed to tow.
Presuming these changes are in the interest of safety and saving lives, they could do a better job of keeping everyone informed rather than just hoping.
If you were to come into my place of work, you would have to watch a safety video, before you are allowed in, then once inside, the place is full of signs advising of safety precautions, do's and dont's etc. So much so, it's over the top, but no one would be in any doubt of what is expected of them. No reason why the govt. couldn't do even a tenth of that, but they don't.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/

 

[v8moneypit]

How would you know unless you checked everyday? What if somethings changed today, yet you last updated yourself yesterday and thought you'll be ok for a week, a month, or whatever time period you update yourself. You could get caught breaking the law on the way to work tomorrow, the copper is in a bad mood, in no mood to let you off with a caution and your knicked. You find yourself with a £60 fine, points on your licence and raised insurance premiums for the next 4 years until the points are gone, hell you may already have 9 points already and guess what, you've just earnt yorself a ban.
I'm sorry but there is more than enough ways for the DFT to make everyone aware without leaving people to find out for themselves or be unaware because the failed to update in time.

Very sorry, but that is the worst argument I've read in years! If you are such a bad driver that you've amassed that many points in a few months, you deserve to be taken off the road!
I suspect you would wise up pretty quick after the first fine.
The point system works. If you don't figure out you are a dangerous driver after the first 3 offences, you should damn well be strung up by the short and curlys!

Getting caught and 3 points should be pretty good knowledge without going to a frigging library! So now you know and you don't do it again!

Simples!

 

[nilagin]

Very sorry, but that is the worst argument I've read in years! If you are such a bad driver that you've amassed that many points in a few months, you deserve to be taken off the road!
I suspect you would wise up pretty quick after the first fine.
The point system works. If you don't figure out you are a dangerous driver after the first 3 offences, you should damn well be strung up by the short and curlys!

Getting caught and 3 points should be pretty good knowledge without going to a frigging library! So now you know and you don't do it again!

Simples!

You can get 3 points for lots of different reasons, some not necessarily dangerous, You can get 6-8 points alone for not having any insurance. That isn't dangerous. 5-10 points for failing to stop after an accident or failing to report it. Daft and a royal pain should anyone be involved in an accident with them, but certainly not dangerous. Points are also on your license for 4 years so it could be easy to accrue points over that time period.
Seems you are even less informed than me. Mind you don't hurt yourself as you fall off your ivory tower.

 

[nilagin]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/

Yes I found that site yesterday whilst I was searching for any info telling drivers they should be keeping themselves up to date with legislation. It wasn't one of the first sites that came up either. Strange that.
Other than professional drivers on forums in the past few days since this came up, I've never come across anyone even talk about checking for updates, nor seen anyone doing it.

 

[ruffdog64]

I got caught speeding last year and did an awareness course where the guy running it pointed out that when we sign for our driving license all them years ago we agreed to regularly check for up dates

 

[nilagin]

I got caught speeding last year and did an awareness course where the guy running it pointed out that when we sign for our driving license all them years ago we agreed to regularly check for up dates

But were you aware when you signed? I wasn't. My late father drove for around 30 years before having to give up in 1991 due to ill health, I don't ever remember him checking for updates. My Uncle drove alot longer for about 45 yrs, he never checked to my knowledge, My wifes Grandfather drove up to the age of 85, probably over 60 yrs driving and he had to keep renewing his license and have medicals to continue after 75, he never had the a computer and would never have known how to use the internet. He was never aware. I've been driving over 30 years and was unaware. My son passed 3 years ago, I don't think he's aware. So that's quite a varied amount of time driving and people not aware.

Can anyone provide a copy of what we signed up to? I've tried to find it on the internet but can't.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

But were you aware when you signed? I wasn't.

Ignorance of the law etc,etc.....

 

[nilagin]

Ignorance of the law etc,etc.....

You're not really helping are you.:shake:
Most laws we become aware of as we go through life and become obvious from an early age, stealing, murder, etc. etc. This one has taken almost 50 yrs to become known to me, 85 years in the case of my wifes grandfather, my point is there has been a major failing on the DFT's part for failing to get the message across properly, I've run a poll on a car related forum about who updates and who doesn't or wasn't even aware, at the moment around 60% were unaware they were supposed to check for updates. OK that's 60% from a small group, but still a high percentage, if that is representative of the motoring public in this country, don't you think that proves the DFT haven't got the message across properly? That's why there is a high level of ignorance. One of the people on the other forum was an ex driving instructor so was aware he should check for updates, he was shocked at the high percentage of people unaware and said although he never did it when he was instructing, he would now make it part of his lessons to make people aware that they should continue to check throughout their motoring life.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

You're not really helping are you.:shake:

I'm not sure what anyone could do to help, your whole argument seems to be based on the premise that if one avoids keeping up to date with legislation then they shouldn't have to abide by said laws...

 

[nilagin]

I'm not sure what anyone could do to help, your whole argument seems to be based on the premise that if one avoids keeping up to date with legislation then they shouldn't have to abide by said laws...

Where have I said that? My whole argument has been that due to the DFT very, wery poorly getting the message across that we are/were supposed keep checking for updates, alot of the motoring public remains ignorant.
In the matter alone how hard would it be to put up speed limit for van signs. A simple red circle with 2T+ and 60mph would suffice.
Perhaps I ought to get a job with the DFT, I'm obviously very good at failing to get a message across.:bang:

Going back to vehicles covered by this speed limit, Nissan sold a people carrier several years ago (mid to late 90's maybe) which was a van similar in shape to a VW transporter rather than a conventional van shape like a Transit. Would that be limited to 60mph? They were definitely a people carrier/car as opposed to a minibus.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

A simple red circle with 2T+ and 60mph would suffice.

No, it wouldn't. If you'd taken the time to read some of the other posts you'd see that some sub-2 tonne vans have to adhere to the lower limit....

 

[Spiritflier]

We had notification of this in work a few years ago although according to one of our local traffic plods, if the van has windows in the side (behind the drivers door), then it's classed as a car and the higher limit applies.

I'm guessing this is so that things like the Vito and Vivaro MPV's aren't classified as commercial. :shrug:

 

[Rebel t3i]

I think we already have far too many road signs
talking of laws that people aren't aware of and someone mentioned motorways and articulated trucks
How many people realise that you cannot use the outer lane of the motorway when towing

 

[srichards]

It's listed here:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelA...G_178867?CID=TAT&PLA=url_mon&CRE=speed_limits

What they need to be clear about is whether there are ones that are over 2 tons that don't and ones that are under 2 tons that do have the lower limit. The DFT information as written here is too weasle worded. If it was 'all car derived vans' then it is simple. It just says they're usually under 2 tons which begs the question about those that are heavier.

 

[nilagin]

I think we already have far too many road signs
talking of laws that people aren't aware of and someone mentioned motorways and articulated trucks
How many people realise that you cannot use the outer lane of the motorway when towing

I wasn't but then I don't tow and as I wrote earlier, there are more towing restrictions on the way (trailer size related).
Did the speed limit for towing caravans or trailers used to be a blanket 50mph on single, dual carriageway and motorways? I seem to remmber they had to have a 50 sticker on the back. I always thought it was, if so, when & why would they increase it to 60 on dual carriagways and motorways other than they'd be a pain as so slow especially on motorways. But surely they are even more unstable dangerous than a van at 70.

 

[munch]

I am afraid this argument is rather similar to the one where people weren't aware their photo driving licences had to be renewed every ten years.

It does tell you this but if people choose not to read the information, whose fault is that.

 

[nilagin]

I am afraid this argument is rather similar to the one where people weren't aware their photo driving licences had to be renewed every ten years.

It does tell you this but if people choose not to read the information, whose fault is that.

I'm ok there, I don't have one.

 

[v8moneypit]

You can get 3 points for lots of different reasons, some not necessarily dangerous, You can get 6-8 points alone for not having any insurance. That isn't dangerous. 5-10 points for failing to stop after an accident or failing to report it. Daft and a royal pain should anyone be involved in an accident with them, but certainly not dangerous. Points are also on your license for 4 years so it could be easy to accrue points over that time period.
Seems you are even less informed than me. Mind you don't hurt yourself as you fall off your ivory tower.

No ivory tower.... I had 3 points on my licence for speeding when I was 19. It was entirely my fault. I knew I was breaking the law. And worse still, I wasn't concentrating enough to see the Police bike. The fact that I wasn't concentrating enough to see the Police bike tells me my driving wasn't up to scratch.

I haven't had any driving offences since (over 30 years of driving).

It's very simple. If you drive within the law you don't get points. If you drive enthusiastically (I do from time to time in the Volvo T5) you should only do it when the road allows and you are awake enough!

However, danger is not the issue in this thread. It's breaking the law. The thread is about driving a vehicle above the speed limit. Speed isn't dangerous. It's the misuse of speed that's dangerous. Breaking the speed limit by a few mph can gain you points without it being dangerous if the road conditions allow. The danger exists when the driver isn't paying attention to the conditions. In which case, the driver deserves to be caught and ultimately removed from the road if they continue to offend.

 

[big soft moose]

The lower limits definitely apply to the Caddy. I run one and I received a letter from VW a while back explaining the new rules.

strange - we've got a caddy and a caddy maxi combi - so I wrote to the dvla and asked for clarification and they say that the maxi kombi is a car because it's got 5 seats and windows in the back, and the caddy is a CDV because its derived from a golf (which is why VAG called it the caddy !)

since i've got this in writing from swansea i'm not too concerned about getting a ticket under 70mph

 

[Flash In The Pan]

strange - we've got a caddy and a caddy maxi combi - so I wrote to the dvla and asked for clarification and they say that the maxi kombi is a car because it's got 5 seats and windows in the back, and the caddy is a CDV because its derived from a golf (which is why VAG called it the caddy !)

How do explain the previous generation Caddy then? That's no Golf

 

[big soft moose]

yeah it is ( i had one of those) the front end, engine etcis pretty much identical to a deisel golf - if you cut the roof off and welded up a pick up bed

 

[Flash In The Pan]

How do explain the previous generation Caddy then? That's no Golf

yeah it is ( i had one of those) the front end, engine etcis pretty much identical to a deisel golf - if you cut the roof off and welded up a pick up bed

Err, no.....

It's a Skoda Felicia with a VW badge on it, did some naughty salesman tell you it was a Volkswagen?

 

[big soft moose]

that isnt the original model - that's since vw took over skoda (when the caddy became a rebadged skoda foreman (also the seat inca) ) although you have just demonstrated that that itteration was also a cdv

the original caddy goes back further than that and was a golf with pick up back - it goes to a period when all the golf models had 'golf' related names like the golf driver and so forth

 

[Flash In The Pan]

that isnt the original model - that's since vw took over skoda (when the caddy became a rebadged skoda foreman (also the seat inca) ) although you have just demonstrated that that itteration was also a cdv

the original caddy goes back further than that and was a golf with pick up back - it goes to a period when all the golf models had 'golf' related names like the golf driver and so forth

It's the one shown in the picture, the one you said was a Golf

 

[Flash In The Pan]

With regard to your new Caddy, what the DVLA say goes against the guidelines set out by the DfT which state the van, to be considered "car derived" has to share its metalwork up to the b-post with the car and have the same wheelbase and track....

 

[inaneredstripe]

HGV drivers have had to stick to 50 on dual cariageways for years.

 

[Richard King]

To be fair, most car drivers who occasionally hire a van, will not be aware of this. This wasn't something I learnt when I passed my test and wasn't something I have known of until today. I hired 3 vans in the last year, and at no point was I told either.. back th my main point

Most people pass their test with the intention of driving a car. They test you on driving a car, (usually a ****y little small one too... and at no point are you prompted to learn about driving a tuck, van, trailer, road roller or any of the other things by default you can then go on and drive with yoru new shiny licence.

25 years on (in my case) after having a licence, and after owning numerous cars, having rented trucks, vans, trucks that tow trailers etc.. I have been unaware of this law.

I'm no numpty driver either. I would be aware that larger vehicals i.e. HGV's are restricted, and of course some roads have weight and height restrictions

So.. how is a driver to know? ... we are not routinely taught it, it wasn't in the highway code when I learnt either. It is not presented to you when you buy or rent a van etc. etc..

 

[Ploddles]

So.. how is a driver to know? ... we are not routinely taught it, it wasn't in the highway code when I learnt either. It is not presented to you when you buy or rent a van etc. etc..

My dad passed his test in the 1950s, before the 70mph speed limit came in to effect (1965).

Following your logic, how would he know that it is 70mph now. It is not on sign posts (just the National Speed Limit symbol is used) and it wasn't in the highway code when he learnt.

I hired a van a few years ago and I asked if there were any restrictions I should know about. They told me the speed limit rules and how much I could load into it at any one time.

Laws change and it is up to you to ensure that you know the current rules.

 

[Bernie174]

Richard

As has been said, many times, you signed a bit of paper when you took your driving test. That bit of paper was you acknowledging you had read and understood the highway code, as it stood at that point. BUT it also is an acknowledgment that you you will keep yourself up to date on legislation as it applies to drivers.
How you forfill that is up to you.
Think yourself lucky, the DfT at least have a web site where you can update yourself. The rest of criminal law has no such help, and you're forced down the route of reading raw law.

 

[nilagin]

Richard

As has been said, many times, you signed a bit of paper when you took your driving test. That bit of paper was you acknowledging you had read and understood the highway code, as it stood at that point. BUT it also is an acknowledgment that you you will keep yourself up to date on legislation as it applies to drivers.

And I have said many times they are failing to make this obvious to people when they pass their test.
When you signed that bit of paper, you weren't signing to say you read and understood the highway code, you'd signed to say you were fortunate in knowing the answers to the questions they asked you on your test.

 

[nilagin]

My dad passed his test in the 1950s, before the 70mph speed limit came in to effect (1965).

Following your logic, how would he know that it is 70mph now. It is not on sign posts (just the National Speed Limit symbol is used) and it wasn't in the highway code when he learnt.

I hired a van a few years ago and I asked if there were any restrictions I should know about. They told me the speed limit rules and how much I could load into it at any one time.

Laws change and it is up to you to ensure that you know the current rules.

I know of a bloke who actually tried to use the 70mph limit not being in place when he passed his test in his defence. I should imagine however that when it was introduced, they made a big thing of it in the news etc. so no one should have been left unaware. Odd they never saw fit to do the same with the reduction in van speed limits.

The fact that you had to ask about any restrictions on use of the van, surely means you hadn't been keeping yourself aware of changes, not the impression you gave us all earlier.:nono:

 

[Ploddles]

I know of a bloke who actually tried to use the 70mph limit not being in place when he passed his test in his defence. I should imagine however that when it was introduced, they made a big thing of it in the news etc. so no one should have been left unaware. Odd they never saw fit to do the same with the reduction in van speed limits.

The fact that you had to ask about any restrictions on use of the van, surely means you hadn't been keeping yourself aware of changes, not the impression you gave us all earlier.:nono:

They may well have made a big thing in the news about it but by then we were living abroad, in Zambia, so your argument about that doesn't hold up. Came back here in the 1980s.

I didn't HAVE to ask when I hired a van, I did so for my own peace of mind. It was more to do with how much I could legally load into van than anything else but they did mention speed limits, which I already knew about.

If you choose not to bother keeping up to date then that is your choice, but you should not complain if/when you get done for it.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Did the speed limit for towing caravans or trailers used to be a blanket 50mph on single, dual carriageway and motorways?

Yes, the towing (car / light goods as tow vehicle) speed limit was a blanket 50 of dual carriageways and motorways, but was later raised to 60. My parents had a 50 sticker on the back of their CI Sprite.



I've been looking at this page regarding the new licence requirements for towing.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/DG_201202

I've read it about a dozen times trying to interpret the wording. As far as I can tell, I keep my existing BE entitlement unchanged except as noted below (and presumably my C1E and D1E entitlements that came with the licence when I got it too, since I'm an old fart and passed my test before 1997).

The only difference from the existing rules seems to be the new requirement to pass a C1E test to tow trailers weighing (it uses the word "weighing" rather than "plated") over 3500kg. My trailer is only plated to 2500kg, so I appear to be unaffected.

Towing law, especially for people who passed their test from 1997 on, is a complicated mess. Some things work from the MAM of the towing vehicle, some things work from the maximum train weight, some things from the plated max weight of the trailer or load ratings of the tyres if not plated, some things from the actual weight of the trailer. Nightmare.

You end up with people that wish to tow a 1700kg trailer buying a 1750kg car to keep the whole lot under 3500kg and within their entitlement, rather than a 2000kg car that may actually be a better and safer tow vehicle.

 

[nilagin]

If you choose not to bother keeping up to date then that is your choice, but you should not complain if/when you get done for it.

No-one has said they choose not to bother though, it's being unaware that you are supposed to which is a huge difference.

 

[Ploddles]

No-one has said they choose not to bother though, it's being unaware that you are supposed to which is a huge difference.

It's common sense really. Everyone knows that rules/laws change over time and that you should make yourself aware of the changes.

 

[Bernie174]

nilagin

And I have said many times they are failing to make this obvious to people when they pass their test.
When you signed that bit of paper, you weren't signing to say you read and understood the highway code, you'd signed to say you were fortunate in knowing the answers to the questions they asked you on your test.

No, they aren't. I read it before I signed, and it is perfectly clear where the responsibility for keeping up to date lays. So, either you didn't read what you signed, in which case not being aware of your responsibility is your own fault, or you have chosen to ignore it. Either way, it's you that's wrong here, no one else.

Now please put that overdeveloped sense of entitlement away, you now know, so there's no point in continuing to whine.