7.5Ton speed limits

TonyMMM

Anyone can go the police and make an allegation of a driving offence against another driver (which seems to be what has happened in this case). The police are duty bound to investigate, which may include taking a statement from the complainant and sending a s172 requirement to the "trangressor". They could also invite them to be interviewed about the allegation (although they are under no obilgation to agree). Evidence may then be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision about whether to proceed with the case.

An allegation from one driver against another with no other corroboration (which could be other witnesses, cctv, physical evidence or admissions made in interview) is unlikely to meet the CPS tests for prosecution , but could still result in a court case if deemed to be serious enough.

Stigy

gethro wrote: »

Hi
Yes it was another truck,where i over took it was going down a small hill with a broken white line my side,as i overtook i looked in my mirrors waiting for him to flash me in and when he flashed me i think i was starting to climb up the other side of the hill which had a solid line my side.
I believe i was back in before the solid line ,next thing i know i get a NIP as i have been reported for an alledged offence of dangerous driving ignoring road signs and overtaking aproaching a blind bend.
This can only be the other driver reporting me.

Could it not have been a camera van or something, and you did actually cross the solid white line? In any case, although not necessarily not breaking any laws, it does seem rather foolish of you to perform such a move on the road, as you'd obviously find it much harder to out accellerate the other lorry if you suddenly saw traffic coming towards you, than a car driver would in most cases! Why the need to overtake anyway? Surely you couldn't possible have travelled much faster than him anyway?

TonyMMM wrote:

Anyone can go the police and make an allegation of a driving offence against another driver (which seems to be what has happened in this case). The police are duty bound to investigate, which may include taking a statement from the complainant and sending a s172 requirement to the "trangressor". They could also invite them to be interviewed about the allegation (although they are under no obilgation to agree). Evidence may then be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision about whether to proceed with the case.

An allegation from one driver against another with no other corroboration (which could be other witnesses, cctv, physical evidence or admissions made in interview) is unlikely to meet the CPS tests for prosecution , but could still result in a court case if deemed to be serious enough.

I agree that anyone can go to the Police to report such an offence, but they'd have to question the offender before issuing a NIP, surely?

goldspanners

iolanthe07 wrote: »

Blimey! The end of white van maniacs on motorways, then?

no i don't think so, its just another slow moving vehicle your going to have to wait behind for ages when it attempts to overtake another speed limited vehicle.

lorries and vans being limited will mean even more congestion and longer tailbacks on dual carridgeways.

Rossy.

goldspanners wrote: »

no i don't think so, its just another slow moving vehicle your going to have to wait behind for ages when it attempts to overtake another speed limited vehicle.

lorries and vans being limited will mean even more congestion and longer tailbacks on dual carridgeways.

Agreed in essance but i'd rather lorries limited to 56mph and cause a slight que rather than being allowed a free run up to 100mph and cause more panic and devastation on the roads..

The reason most congestion happens because of a lorry is 90% of the joe public are crap scared at overtaking the bloody thing.

gethro

Hammyman wrote: »

Yawn - this is almost as tedious as it is on Trucknet . I keep up to date with legislation even though I've been out of the industry for 2 years so I'm up to date should I ever want to return. It would appear that it is in fact you who needs to learn something new. EU law was altered a EIGHT YEARS AGO to make speed limiters mandatory on 7.5 tonners with the UK getting a deferment to being applicable from 2008. So basically now, every 7.5t registered from 2001 onwards has to have them.

I await your apology....



In November 2002 the European Parliament and Council issued Directive 2002/85/EC which amended the original Directive 92/6/EEC to extend the range of vehicles to which the Directive applies. The Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 have now been amended (SI 2102/2004) to incorporate these new requirements which came into effect as of the 1st January 2005.

New Requirements

New vehicles

Goods vehicles over 3,5t (gross design weight), and Passenger vehicles (irrespective of weight) with more than 8 passenger seats, first registered after 1 January 2005 are now required to be fitted with speed limiters.

However, for Goods vehicles (over 3.5t but n/e 7.5t) and Passenger vehicles (with over 8 passenger seats and a design weight n/e 5.0t) used solely within the UK this requirement is deferred to 1 January 2008.

Retro-fit to existing vehicles

There are retro-fit requirements that will apply to Goods (over 3.5t GDW) and Passenger vehicles (over 8 passenger seats - irrespective of weight) that were first registered between 1 October 2001 and 31 December 2004 (inclusive).

Vehicles caught by these requirements will need to be fitted with speed limiters with effect for 1 January 2006, unless the vehicle is being used solely within the UK, in which case the requirement will come into effect on 1 January 2007.

Vehicle's over 10 ton have been limited since the late 90s,I had two 7.5ton Mercs which due to the date they were registered had to have restricters fitted in 2002,this is more than the couple of years you quoted in your original post which is what i queried , No apology due

gethro

Stigy wrote: »

Could it not have been a camera van or something, and you did actually cross the solid white line? In any case, although not necessarily not breaking any laws, it does seem rather foolish of you to perform such a move on the road, as you'd obviously find it much harder to out accellerate the other lorry if you suddenly saw traffic coming towards you, than a car driver would in most cases! Why the need to overtake anyway? Surely you couldn't possible have travelled much faster than him anyway?

I agree that anyone can go to the Police to report such an offence, but they'd have to question the offender before issuing a NIP, surely?

Hi
There was no Camera van or anything like that,i drove along the road again today and there was no where for any camera vehicle to park or hide.
The vehicle i overtook had pulled out in front of me from a trading estate and was driving along at about 30mph,This was in a national speed limit ,as i started going down the hill the road in front was clear and there was no other vehicles in view,i had a gap of approx 200 meters ( i clocked it today) before the solid white line so decided to overtake.
I will wait and see what the police say when they ring me ,it did say on the NIP alleged offence so i assume they have to speak to me first.

Stigy

gethro wrote: »

I will wait and see what the police say when they ring me ,it did say on the NIP alleged offence so i assume they have to speak to me first.

All offences are alleged until you're sucessfuly prosecuted for them!

Yorkie1

The purpose of a NIP is to alert you to the potential for prosecution, so that you can conduct your own investigation / gather evidence / try not to forget etc. If there hasn't been an accident, a NIP is required before a conviction can occur. So at this point it's simply a procedural matter which the police have to issue in order to protect their position. Doesn't mean that a prosecution for dangerous or careless driving will automatically follow.

DaveF327

There's a big leap from crossing a solid white line (max. £1000 fine and 3 points) to dangerous driving (max. 2 years imprisonment, unlimited fine, obligatory disqualification).

To prove dangerous driving, the prosecution would have to show that:
(a) the way you drove fell far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and

(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.


Even if there was no evidence of the traffic signs offence (straddling the white line) but it came to light that you weren't sure whether you made it back before the solid line, the most serious offence they could charge you with would be driving without due care and attention. To prove this, the prosecution would have to show:
(a) the way you drove fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b) regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which you could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within your knowledge.

If I were in your shoes and held my hands up to a "possible but uncertain" infringement of a solid white line for a short distance with no effect caused, I'd fight the dangerous driving charge, but offer to plead guilty to the double white line charge.

Paradigm

DaveF327 wrote: »

I'd fight the dangerous driving charge, but offer to plead guilty to the double white line charge.

As yet there is no charge so why offer to plead guilty to anything?

By following that advice a prosecution is certain, it's just made their case for them!

As it stands the Police have had a complaint & they're investigating, that's all. Deny any incident & where is the evidence?

The NIP will probably contain a request for the driver details & this must be returned within 28 days but...

It's acceptable to staple a letter to the NIP explaining that you were driving the vehicle at the time but that no incident took place... basically you don't know what they are talking about!