PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

52G Rotherhithe Tunnel weight restriction
liffey
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 10:31
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



My husband has received a ticket for driving through Rotherhithe Tunnel in his van. It's a Mercedes Vito xlwb 2007 model. It weighs 1470kg when empty.

He didn't know that there was a new weight restriction until he got the ticket. We think TfL have been very underhanded in this and haven't publicised the change at all. Is there anything he can do?

The photos of the signs are ones he went back to take afterwards











Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 10:31
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 11:46
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,646
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=126281


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liffey
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 12:57
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



Thanks Pastmybest, I read that thread before my husband took the photos (which is why he got them).

Apologies but I’m not seeing a clear answer there though?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 13:12
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,646
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (liffey @ Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 12:57) *
Thanks Pastmybest, I read that thread before my husband took the photos (which is why he got them).

Apologies but I’m not seeing a clear answer there though?


Is there a clear answer? You could argue that the signage is inadequate, there is to much to take in and that as a 2t van is not normally considered as a goods vehicle the restriction is not prominent enough to allow you to avoid.. You could argue that it would be proper to issue warning notices before they start to enforce a restriction that since its introduction was not enforced

You have a valid argument for both but both are open to the subjective view of the adjudicator. Or you can hope TfL mess up, that's not uncommon

But there is no outright get out of jail free card


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 14:08
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,848
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, I'm unclear.

It weighs 1470kg when empty.

He didn't know that there was a new weight restriction until he got the ticket.


So do you think that 1470 ULW is relevant and that the restriction does not apply, or that the unladen weight is immaterial - the retriction being on a vehicle's max laden weight?

As you know, weight restrictions apply to a vehicle's max laden weight, see below:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liffey
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 19:26
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



Thanks Pastmybest, I understand a bit better now - it would just be general representations.

When you say you hope TfL mess up, do you mean with the procedure once we appeal?

Hi hcandersen

I didn’t know that weight restrictions apply to a vehicle’s max laden weight and I’m not sure why you assumed that I do?

I don’t know how to answer your question.

The previous weight restriction was much higher and he doesn’t drive a heavy goods vehicle. He only transports handtools.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 20:34
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,284
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (liffey @ Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 19:26) *
I didn’t know that weight restrictions apply to a vehicle’s max laden weight and I’m not sure why you assumed that I do?
.


I think HCA meant that someone in charge of the vehicle should know.

I would try an appeal based on the newness of the restriction, the confusing signage (a lot to take in ) and you may as well try the fact that the van is not used in a laden state of 2 tonnes or over. TFL can mess up replies so worth a shot. Are you or yoru partner the registered keeper?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 22:01
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,848
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



+1

Because driving a weight-restricted vehicle on the road when the driver doesn't know the law regarding their vehicle is foolish.


Having said this, the was an officer in the waste disposal department of a council which I shall not name who thought that his refuse vehicles could drive back over the old Walton Bridge because their unladen weight was less than the weight restriction.

So you were not alone and both he and you are now better informed.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 22:23
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,774
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 22:01) *
+1

Because driving a weight-restricted vehicle on the road when the driver doesn't know the law regarding their vehicle is foolish.


Having said this, the was an officer in the waste disposal department of a council which I shall not name who thought that his refuse vehicles could drive back over the old Walton Bridge because their unladen weight was less than the weight restriction.

So you were not alone and both he and you are now better informed.



What a load of garbage!!!! wink.gif

Set yourself up nicely hca.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
caddy
post Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 00:26
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 5 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,773



It's of little consolation, but I've learnt something very important here.
I drive a vw caddy kombi van (panel van with rear windows) and it's classed as a light commercial LCV and indistinguishable from a vw caddy life which has also has rear windows but seats as well which is classed as a car.
It's bizarre to think that a Vito minibus or MPV with windows is allowed to pass, but a Vito van isn't. Similarly with my caddy van which has a GVW of 2.2T and although I'm aware of speed restrictions regarding LCV's it would never cross my mind that I wouldn't be allowed through the Rotherhithe Tunnel.
There are plenty of cars and 4x4's which are over 2T unladen, let alone laden (e.g. Bentleys, Shoguns).
The M6 Toll road has signs for lorries, vans, trailers and cars. The signage at Rotherhithe is most confusing, a lorry is shown which would clearly be higher than 2m, and a further restriction on commerical vehicles longer than 33 feet!
In my opinion, which counts for nothing here, there should only be two signs, the 2m wide and high signs. I've no idea why a much heavier Shogun or Bentley is allowed through and a Vito not. There is a multitude of signs to take in and from my point of view too many and I'd say, I'm not a lorry, don't have 2t laden (which I now know is wrong), not over 33 feet, don't have twin wheel axle, narrower than 2m and lower than 2m - job done
The 2t commerical restriction sign seems designed to catch van/minibus drivers out. I can't think of any vehicle less than 2m wide/high that shouldn't go through and why the restriction of a twin wheel axle? 2t is better spread over a twin wheel axle than a single wheel - the signs are simply bizarre.
Either the person who commissioned the signs got it wrong with the 2t vs. 3.5t or it's deliberate, even a Ford Focus can have a GVW of over 2t.
I sympathise with the OP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liffey
post Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 06:33
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 20:34) *
QUOTE (liffey @ Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 19:26) *
I didn’t know that weight restrictions apply to a vehicle’s max laden weight and I’m not sure why you assumed that I do?
.


I think HCA meant that someone in charge of the vehicle should know.

I would try an appeal based on the newness of the restriction, the confusing signage (a lot to take in ) and you may as well try the fact that the van is not used in a laden state of 2 tonnes or over. TFL can mess up replies so worth a shot. Are you or yoru partner the registered keeper?


Thanks for the suggestion, we will try general representations based on those.

My husband is the registered keeper

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 22:01) *
+1

Because driving a weight-restricted vehicle on the road when the driver doesn't know the law regarding their vehicle is foolish.


Having said this, the was an officer in the waste disposal department of a council which I shall not name who thought that his refuse vehicles could drive back over the old Walton Bridge because their unladen weight was less than the weight restriction.

So you were not alone and both he and you are now better informed.


Is there really any need? If we all knew every applicable road law there wouldn’t be a need for forums like this or indeed any type of lawyer at all would there.

It’s not like he does HGV driving for a living where I imagine those types of restrictions are highlighted.

QUOTE (caddy @ Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 00:26) *
It's of little consolation, but I've learnt something very important here.
I drive a vw caddy kombi van (panel van with rear windows) and it's classed as a light commercial LCV and indistinguishable from a vw caddy life which has also has rear windows but seats as well which is classed as a car.
It's bizarre to think that a Vito minibus or MPV with windows is allowed to pass, but a Vito van isn't. Similarly with my caddy van which has a GVW of 2.2T and although I'm aware of speed restrictions regarding LCV's it would never cross my mind that I wouldn't be allowed through the Rotherhithe Tunnel.
There are plenty of cars and 4x4's which are over 2T unladen, let alone laden (e.g. Bentleys, Shoguns).
The M6 Toll road has signs for lorries, vans, trailers and cars. The signage at Rotherhithe is most confusing, a lorry is shown which would clearly be higher than 2m, and a further restriction on commerical vehicles longer than 33 feet!
In my opinion, which counts for nothing here, there should only be two signs, the 2m wide and high signs. I've no idea why a much heavier Shogun or Bentley is allowed through and a Vito not. There is a multitude of signs to take in and from my point of view too many and I'd say, I'm not a lorry, don't have 2t laden (which I now know is wrong), not over 33 feet, don't have twin wheel axle, narrower than 2m and lower than 2m - job done
The 2t commerical restriction sign seems designed to catch van/minibus drivers out. I can't think of any vehicle less than 2m wide/high that shouldn't go through and why the restriction of a twin wheel axle? 2t is better spread over a twin wheel axle than a single wheel - the signs are simply bizarre.
Either the person who commissioned the signs got it wrong with the 2t vs. 3.5t or it's deliberate, even a Ford Focus can have a GVW of over 2t.
I sympathise with the OP.


Thank you - some very useful points about the discrepancies and how the new restriction catches the average road user unaware
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liffey
post Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 07:21
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



Is it worth requesting the CCTV? We want to do the reps within the 14 days if possible and could use a bit more time
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 08:30
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,848
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Is there really any need?


What, to know the absolute basics of driving a load carrying vehicle on the public highway? And we've not touched securing loads, axle limits, driver's hours, operator's licence.......😏

Anyway, the OP now knows, which is good.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 08:55
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (liffey @ Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 07:21) *
Is it worth requesting the CCTV?


How will the CCTV assist you?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liffey
post Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 08:58
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 08:55) *
QUOTE (liffey @ Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 07:21) *
Is it worth requesting the CCTV?


How will the CCTV assist you?


I don't know, that's why I'm asking the question
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 09:07
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,284
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Pics are shot from the front - where is that - past entrance to southbound entrance? CCTV won't show much more than what's in the pics.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 17:50
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,150
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The photos of the signs look like advance warning signs, rather than regulatory signs. I would ask for the footage, it can't hurt and they'll put the penalty on hold while you wait. I would also go back and check for regulatory signs, an advance warning sign on its own does not create a restriction.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liffey
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 09:09
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 17:50) *
The photos of the signs look like advance warning signs, rather than regulatory signs. I would ask for the footage, it can't hurt and they'll put the penalty on hold while you wait. I would also go back and check for regulatory signs, an advance warning sign on its own does not create a restriction.


Really helpful, thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
caddy
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 17:13
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 5 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,773



Firstly, my apologies as I didn't recognise a generic dangerous goods sign, it seerms these signs exist with twin and single wheels.

Attached is the signage from google 2018 which shows the 2m width, 4.4m height, 33' length, dangerous goods and 17t GVW restrictions
Attached File  A101___Google_Maps.pdf ( 409.61K ) Number of downloads: 229


TfL explain the restrictions here:
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/rotherhith...el-restrictions

and in particular say:
Weight restriction
Goods vehicles can't use Rotherhithe Tunnel if they have a gross vehicle weight of more than 2 tonnes.

Tfl's alternative crossings map:
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/rotherhithe-tunn...r-crossings.pdf
makes reference to 2tonnes weight restriction on vehicles and no mention of goods vehicles.

'Vehicles entering Rotherhithe Tunnel are subject to restrictions. If your vehicle does not comply please use alternative river crossings to complete your journey.''


With thanks to HCA and the pointer to Traffic signs manual chapter 3,
in section 5.15 it refers to the sign 622.1A which is the sign of a lorry with a number indicating wieght limit as per OP's orginal post with a 2t limit. This sign didn't exist previously at the Rotherhithe tunnel and from google 2018 there is a 626.2A max gross weight of 17t shown which is the round restrictive sign simply showing '17t mgw' as attached

This bit could be really imporant, the 622.1A which TfL now use and from the traffic signs manual:

This sign is used when goods
vehicles are prohibited for environmental reasons,
e.g. where roads are narrow and unsuitable for large
vehicles, or to protect residents from the nuisance
caused by lorries in residential streets. The sign is not
used for structural limits, such as those to protect
weak bridges (see paras 5.31 to 5.33).

622.1A Prohibition of goods vehicles exceeding
the maximum gross weight indicated
“7.5T” may be varied to “18T”. May be used with
diagram 554.3 or 620


This would suggest to me that the 622.1A goods vehicle sign should only be used with either a 7.5T or 18T restriction. TfL are using this with a 2t limit. It is not to be used for structural weight limits, but more to restrict lorries/goods-vehicles driving where they shouldn't, i.e. very narrow country lanes, residential short-cut routes etc. The only sign used for structural weight should be the 626.2A


Just as important is the now missing 626.2A sign which was previously at 17t mgw restriction and again from the Traffic signs manual:

STRUCTURAL WEIGHT LIMIT
5.31 Paras 5.15 to 5.19 give details of signs used
to prohibit goods vehicles for environmental reasons.
The weight limit prohibition sign to diagram 626.2A
indicates a structural limit and applies to all types
of vehicle, including buses. The sign is used to give
effect to an order prohibiting a vehicle above the
maximum gross weight specified on the sign from
driving on a weak bridge. When the legend in the
upper panel is varied to read “WEAK ROAD”, it is
used where an order has been made because the
condition of a road is such that its use by heavy
vehicles is liable to damage it.

626.2A Maximum weight of vehicle on bridge
“18T” may be varied to “3T”, “7.5T”, “10T”,
“13T”, “26T” or “33T”. “BRIDGE” may be
varied to “ROAD”



This would suggest to me that for a weight restriction the 626.2A sign should be used and again 2t isn't an option, the only options allowed are 3, 7.5, 10, 13, 18, 26 or 33T
This sign should be used to restrict weight of any vehicle over a weak bridge or road so even if 2t were allowed it would mean at a guess 50% of the vehicles are in contravention if a ford focus can be over 2t gvw. My guess is that TfL should actually be using a 3t 626.2A generic weight restriction sign, the use of a non-conforming 2t goods vehicle sign would seem to be designed to catch vans and minbuses out.

To me it seems that TfL are inventing signs and conflating a goods vehicle sign with a structural weight restriction sign. I have absolutely no experience in these matters, but I'd be really grateful if one of you more experienced could comment on whether I'm barking up the wrong tree.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dagdave
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 21:21
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 13 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,535



Tfl has put up quite a few electonic notice boards ,some a few miles away from Rotherhithe ,displaying Rotberhithe tunnel -Cars only .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 16th September 2019 - 13:19
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.