Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 52G Rotherhithe Tunnel weight restriction
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2, 3
liffey
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











PASTMYBEST
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=126281
liffey
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?
PASTMYBEST
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
hcandersen
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
liffey
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.
stamfordman
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?
hcandersen
+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.

Mad Mick V
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
caddy
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.
liffey
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
liffey
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
hcandersen
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.



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


How will the CCTV assist you?
liffey
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
stamfordman
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.
cp8759
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.
liffey
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
caddy
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
Click to view attachment

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.
Dagdave
Tfl has put up quite a few electonic notice boards ,some a few miles away from Rotherhithe ,displaying Rotberhithe tunnel -Cars only .
caddy
Thankfully I've not driven in London for over 30 years, but interesting that TfL have 'car only' signs up for the Rotherhithe tunnel.

A goods vehicle is any vehicle designed to carry goods; however for taxation purposes a goods vehicle is anything over a 3.5t gvw. Also a car derived van is anything up to a 2t gvw such as a minivan, corsavan fiesta van etc. There is a grey area with MPV's i.e vans with rear glass windows and vans with panels. HMRC, customes and excise, VAT and DVLA argue amongst themselves as to who can benefit most by classing them as different and exactly the same vehicle on the outside and same weight could be classed differently if there is a second row of seats.

We're not talking about big sprinters or transits here which exceed 2m in height, the OP's vehicle was a Vito with roughly a kerb weight of 1.8t and a gvw of 2.7t

There are plenty of cars around Shoguns, Bentleys amongst many others that have a kerb weight of over 2t and a gvw of over 3t

I don't think anybody has a problem with weight restrictions on weak roads/bridges; however when a small van has half the kerb weight of some cars and a gvw which is less than the kerb weight of other cars and they face a restriction and fines for contravention simply based upon being a van whereas a much heavier car doesn't then something is fundamentally wrong

If TfL were serious about size and weight restriction then they'd have the 2m width/height and the minimum 3t weight restriction signs.

I still think the 2t goods vehicle sign is make believe and dreamt up by TfL. My only interest here is I also would have merrily driven through the tunnel in my albeit smaller van and if it were sign written I would have been fined and without sign writing no fine and what happens in London tends to happen in the provinces sooner or later.

Are TfL bound by regulatory signs or are they allowed to make their own ones up and enforce them?
liffey
QUOTE (caddy @ Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 17:13) *
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
Click to view attachment

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.


This is amazing - I really hope you’re right and thank you so much
PASTMYBEST
Sorry to burst a bubble but you must look to schedule 3 part 4 para 6 of TSRGD 2016 it says

6. The sign may have different numerals to those shown in the diagram. which suggests it may be changed to 2 tonnes
baroudeur
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 16:41) *
Sorry to burst a bubble but you must look to schedule 3 part 4 para 6 of TSRGD 2016 it says

6. The sign may have different numerals to those shown in the diagram. which suggests it may be changed to 2 tonnes


Weight restrictions in place for environmental reasons may show any weight but the DfT recommends that the standard 3.5t - 7.5t - 18t signs used for vehicle and licence classifications are used as these make it easier to identify contraventions.

Many drivers of the car-derived type of van will not know the vehicle's GVW nor need to in the normal course of events.
hcandersen
Let's hope that the OP's obvious desire to grab at any straw and the oversupply of the same is not going to lead to them forking out the full penalty.
caddy
thanks OP and Pastmybest,

Despite objections from the Institute of Highway Engineers as shown at bottom (IHE), their concerns didn't seem to have made it into the TSRGD 2016 or into any of the amendments since as far as I can tell. The older signs manual was clear that the 622.1A sign shouldn't be used for structural weight limits; however the 2015 TSRGD cleary states under the sign:
Numerals may be varied

The 2016 TSRGD simply states:
Diagram 622.1A
Goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross
weight indicated prohibited

with no mention of the 2015 'Numerals may be varied' or 'Numerals may be varied to any value' which was the IHE's concern.



Again, however and just to confuse me even more, the Traffic signs working drawings: TSRGD 2016 schedule 3:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-13-p622x1a.pdf

shows the 622.1A sign with a 7.5t and its only variant at 18t. The title of which is 'GOODS VEHICLES OVER 7.5 TONNES OR 18 TONNES (mgw) PROHIBITED' along side the caveat 'Before using this drawing, confirm that it has not been superseded'
The 2015 TSRGD has the 'Numerals may be varied' caveat. The 2016 TSRGD reverts back to the old standard 'Goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross
weight indicated prohibited'
The TSRGD website refers to the 2016 TSRGD, the amendments and also the 2008 Traffic signs manual:
https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsm/tsm-chapter-03.pdf
which would suggest that this manual is still in force '622.1A Prohibition of goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross weight indicated “7.5T” may be varied to “18T” and specifically states that the 622.1A shouldn't be used for structural weights.
It's clear that the indicated weight shown on the lorry can be varied/different, but does this mean only (7.5t / 18t) as per the 2008 Traffic signs manual or does the lack of clarification in 2016 with the same wording from 2008 i.e. indicated weight now mean something else?

There's no confusion around small car derived vans <2t or the bigger Sprinters/Transits etc. over 2m in height. I am completley unclear where Vito's, caddy's, transit connect's, Peugeot Partner's, Citroen Dispatch's etc. etc. fit into the scheme of things. It's bizarre that any of these vehicles would probably pass through the tunnel unchallenged with rear and side glass windows, but challenged if panelled

Clearly the safest bet for the OP would be to pay the reduced amount. I apologise for muddying the waters, and my interest here lies in the fact that I would have unwittingly made the same decision to drive through and worse still; I really can't figure out or find a definitive answer.




IHE:
http://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2...HE-response.pdf

Proposed 2015 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, This document is the response of the Institute of Highway Engineers (IHE) to the above consultation

Schedule 2: Regulatory signs Structural and Environmental weight limits Allowing the numerals on the environmental lorry ban sign, diag. 622.1A (Table 6, Item 13) to be varied to any value would cause enforcement problems and inconsistency across the country, as the Police can only determine particular bands of weight (such as 7.5T and 18T) by inspection of the plates displayed on the vehicle. If greater flexibility is needed on weight limits, it should surely be for structural weight limits (diag. 626.2A, Table 34 Item 2) where there is arguably a greater need to tailor the maximum weight indicated to the actual structural capacity of the road.
PASTMYBEST
If the sign is an authorised sign, by virtue of the TSRGD 2016 or SoS authorisation, and it conveys the information within a valid traffic order, an adjudicator cannot look to the vires of that order It would be for the high court to decide if the order was lawfully made or not
caddy
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 19:52) *
If the sign is an authorised sign, by virtue of the TSRGD 2016 or SoS authorisation, and it conveys the information within a valid traffic order, an adjudicator cannot look to the vires of that order It would be for the high court to decide if the order was lawfully made or not


and that's the crux of the matter, If:
"If the sign is an authorised sign, by virtue of the TSRGD 2016"
prior to 2015/16 the only indicated weight allowed to be depicted was 7.5t or 18t

The 2015 TSRGD qualifies this with "Numerals may be varied"
and the Institute of Highway Engineers in their consultation are concerned about 'Numerals may be varied to any value' and there's no mention of either in the 2016 TSRGD which is a shame as 'any value' would mean any value so a 2 tonnes gvw goods vehicle bang to rights. 'May have different numerals' from the 2016 TSRGD is very similar to 'mgw exceeding that shown on the sign' from 2008 which then clarifies 7.5t/18t. What's bugging me unfortunately is that I would stop at a 2 tonne 626.2A sign and I wouldn't have done at a 2 tonne 622.1A

The 622.1A isn't about a weight limit, it's more about bulk, i.e a 7.5 or 18t sized lorry going down narrow country lanes or through residential areas, the weight limit is adequately covered by the 626.2A sign.

we can discuss whether drivers of people carriers or the same vehicle without windows i.e. vans should know the kerb weight and gvw, we can also try to imagine what a fully laden lorry of less than 2t gvw looks like to no avail.

Normally signs are pretty well regulated, i.e. a speed limit sign with numerals depicts specific numbers and not just any random number such as 23.5mph. Imagine different councils up and down the country indicating a speed limit in their speed limit signs that they chose. Somebody at the dept. for Transport made a decision on the original allowed 7.5t/18t weight variants and what that actually got turned into from 2016. I'm going to write to the DfT, up to 20 working days for a reply if I'm lucky, and see if I can solicit confirmation.

I have no problem with size/weight restrictions for safety reasons; however TfL are saying a 2.1 tonne small van is unsafe because of its weight and will be challenged/fined and a 3.3 tonne car is perfectly okay. Although most likely legal, TfL haven't chosen the best sign here and if weight really is a safety consideration then the 626.2A weight restriction sign should be in use. I'll report back in a few weeks time if I get a reply from DfT.

In the meantime as a layperson I can only assume that TfL are better qualified than me with signs and can put whatever numerals they want in the sign be it 0.1t or 999t
PASTMYBEST
Have to disagree on the weight limit being used to regulate size of vehicle. Furniture removal vans can easily be less than 7.5 tonnes but are bigger than a lot of rigid HGV (i know the old term)

Variants of 629 cover size, Height width and length
justadisplayname
TFL have had people stand on either side of the tunnels for months day and night to divert any vehicle that is not a car.
cp8759
I'm not sure anyone's posted a photo of the regulatory signs yet?
liffey
QUOTE (caddy @ Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 19:29) *
thanks OP and Pastmybest,

Despite objections from the Institute of Highway Engineers as shown at bottom (IHE), their concerns didn't seem to have made it into the TSRGD 2016 or into any of the amendments since as far as I can tell. The older signs manual was clear that the 622.1A sign shouldn't be used for structural weight limits; however the 2015 TSRGD cleary states under the sign:
Numerals may be varied

The 2016 TSRGD simply states:
Diagram 622.1A
Goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross
weight indicated prohibited

with no mention of the 2015 'Numerals may be varied' or 'Numerals may be varied to any value' which was the IHE's concern.



Again, however and just to confuse me even more, the Traffic signs working drawings: TSRGD 2016 schedule 3:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-13-p622x1a.pdf

shows the 622.1A sign with a 7.5t and its only variant at 18t. The title of which is 'GOODS VEHICLES OVER 7.5 TONNES OR 18 TONNES (mgw) PROHIBITED' along side the caveat 'Before using this drawing, confirm that it has not been superseded'
The 2015 TSRGD has the 'Numerals may be varied' caveat. The 2016 TSRGD reverts back to the old standard 'Goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross
weight indicated prohibited'
The TSRGD website refers to the 2016 TSRGD, the amendments and also the 2008 Traffic signs manual:
https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsm/tsm-chapter-03.pdf
which would suggest that this manual is still in force '622.1A Prohibition of goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross weight indicated “7.5T” may be varied to “18T” and specifically states that the 622.1A shouldn't be used for structural weights.
It's clear that the indicated weight shown on the lorry can be varied/different, but does this mean only (7.5t / 18t) as per the 2008 Traffic signs manual or does the lack of clarification in 2016 with the same wording from 2008 i.e. indicated weight now mean something else?

There's no confusion around small car derived vans <2t or the bigger Sprinters/Transits etc. over 2m in height. I am completley unclear where Vito's, caddy's, transit connect's, Peugeot Partner's, Citroen Dispatch's etc. etc. fit into the scheme of things. It's bizarre that any of these vehicles would probably pass through the tunnel unchallenged with rear and side glass windows, but challenged if panelled

Clearly the safest bet for the OP would be to pay the reduced amount. I apologise for muddying the waters, and my interest here lies in the fact that I would have unwittingly made the same decision to drive through and worse still; I really can't figure out or find a definitive answer.




IHE:
http://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2...HE-response.pdf

Proposed 2015 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, This document is the response of the Institute of Highway Engineers (IHE) to the above consultation

Schedule 2: Regulatory signs Structural and Environmental weight limits Allowing the numerals on the environmental lorry ban sign, diag. 622.1A (Table 6, Item 13) to be varied to any value would cause enforcement problems and inconsistency across the country, as the Police can only determine particular bands of weight (such as 7.5T and 18T) by inspection of the plates displayed on the vehicle. If greater flexibility is needed on weight limits, it should surely be for structural weight limits (diag. 626.2A, Table 34 Item 2) where there is arguably a greater need to tailor the maximum weight indicated to the actual structural capacity of the road.


Thanks - I appreciate the perspective even as something to look into further. My husband is adamant he’s not paying so we’ll just have to do the best reps we can

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 9 Mar 2019 - 17:08) *
I'm not sure anyone's posted a photo of the regulatory signs yet?


I’m not sure what those are?

My husband only noticed the sign as he got to the tunnel approach. He went back to take photos of what should have been visible on his route based on the other thread about these cameras on here.
cp8759
QUOTE (liffey @ Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 19:35) *
I’m not sure what those are?

My husband only noticed the sign as he got to the tunnel approach. He went back to take photos of what should have been visible on his route based on the other thread about these cameras on here.

There should be proper signs closer to the tunnel entrance. I support TFL could be relying only on the signs you've shown us already, but I think there's far too much information to be taken in.
caddy
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 9 Mar 2019 - 17:08) *
I'm not sure anyone's posted a photo of the regulatory signs yet?

No, not yet, there's a glimpse of two of them in the background of the 2nd photo from the original first post, a 2m restirction to the left of the white polo/corsa? and also what looks like a 2t 622.1A to the right of the blue van which ironically would have received a similar contravention based on being a van rather than weight. compared to heavier cars going through.

Apparently on the first day of enforcement officials were even turning around cabbies which had changed by the next day after much protestation, but it indicates the lack of planning, forethought, competence etc.

Airports and car parks manage to put up physical barriers in a very tight space such as raised kerbs, 2m concrete bollards and a 2m floating height barrier along with a relief gate for maintenance and emergency use. These are useful to stop vehicles such as a landrover discovery mk1 from enteriing and taking all the lighting out in a low height car park. There are several such width restrictions local to me for weak bridges/roads and the local council has resisted the temptation to remove the physical restrictions, use cctv, signs and issue £65/£130 pcn's.

To the OP, Not knowing/understanding/paying-attention or something being simply unfair are not good enough grounds for the adjudicator. Despite wishful thinking I don't think anybody here has seen 100% good enough grounds so far. Personally, I'd have come a cropper here too and being an akward so and so, but also wanting to learn I'd risk the extra £65 on top of the already lost £65 to get clarity and I'd have already written the £130 off with anything coming back as a bonus.
cp8759
QUOTE (caddy @ Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 22:51) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 9 Mar 2019 - 17:08) *
I'm not sure anyone's posted a photo of the regulatory signs yet?

No, not yet, there's a glimpse of two of them in the background of the 2nd photo from the original first post, a 2m restirction to the left of the white polo/corsa? and also what looks like a 2t 622.1A to the right of the blue van which ironically would have received a similar contravention based on being a van rather than weight. compared to heavier cars going through.

Well until we seem them none of us can say whether they're adequate.
liffey
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 23:00) *
QUOTE (caddy @ Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 22:51) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 9 Mar 2019 - 17:08) *
I'm not sure anyone's posted a photo of the regulatory signs yet?

No, not yet, there's a glimpse of two of them in the background of the 2nd photo from the original first post, a 2m restirction to the left of the white polo/corsa? and also what looks like a 2t 622.1A to the right of the blue van which ironically would have received a similar contravention based on being a van rather than weight. compared to heavier cars going through.

Well until we seem them none of us can say whether they're adequate.


Now I know what they are I’ll tell him to try and get photos, thanks
roythebus
I've been through there fairly recently, maybe the end of last year in my Range Rover and found the signs very confusing. It may be worth the OP using the "Chelmsford" appeal of too many signs for the driver to take in all the information. Interesting as my partner's Discovery commercial could fall foul of the 2T weight limit if it's fully loaded with a 750kg payload.

I fail to see the need for the length limit as nothing of that length could get through the barriers anyway due to the sharp curve entering the tunnel approach. There's very few vans over 6'6 high.

With TfL allegedly trying to cut down on emissions, banning so many types of vehicles using the tunnel blows a hole in their policy by diverting them either over Tower Bridge or the Blackwall Tunnel.
hcandersen
@roythebus,

Discovery commercial could fall foul of the 2T weight limit if it's fully loaded with a 750kg payload.

Unloaded, loaded, stripped to its chassis or whatever makes no difference:

maximum gross weight”

(a)in the case of a motor vehicle not drawing a trailer or in the case of a trailer, its maximum laden weight;
(b)in the case of an articulated vehicle, its maximum laden weight (if it has one) and otherwise the aggregate maximum laden weight of all the individual vehicles forming part of that articulated vehicle;
©in the case of a motor vehicle (other than an articulated vehicle) drawing one or more trailers, the aggregate maximum laden weight of the motor vehicle and the trailer or trailers drawn by it
“maximum laden weight”
in relation to a vehicle (including a vehicle which is a trailer) means—
(a)in the case of a vehicle as respects which a gross weight not to be exceeded in Great Britain is specified in construction and use requirements (as defined by section 41(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1988(23)), the weight so specified;
(b)in the case of a vehicle as respects which no such weight is so specified, the weight which the vehicle is designed or adapted not to exceed when in normal use and travelling on a road laden
;

Not what in a particular situation a vehicle plus load might actually weigh!
caddy
QUOTE (roythebus @ Tue, 12 Mar 2019 - 20:45) *
Interesting as my partner's Discovery commercial could fall foul of the 2T weight limit if it's fully loaded with a 750kg payload.


Your Partner's Discovery absolutely falls foul of the TfL imposed 2t weight limit even when completely empty and no driver!
It's even heavier when completely empty/unladen than some fully laden vans that are getting PCN's

Most vehicles bigger than and including a ford focus estate would fall foul of the 2t limit if sold/designed as a goods/commercial vehicle. TfL have singled out small vans and are issuing PCN's whilst at the same time allowing much bigger and heavier cars through.

The Land Rover Discovery Commercial has the following maximum gross vehicle weight (GVW) and payload capacity based on the available engines:

SD4 engine (2,940kg GVW) max payload: 728kg
SD6 engine (3,170kg GVW) max payload: 891kg
Longtime Lurker
Does that perhaps make a case for de minimis, or is that too much of a long shot?
cp8759
QUOTE (Longtime Lurker @ Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 00:42) *
Does that perhaps make a case for de minimis, or is that too much of a long shot?

If the gross weight is indeed 2.7 tonnes there's no chance of it being de-minimis.
Ken Grayling
QUOTE (caddy @ Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 17:13) *
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
Click to view attachment

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.


I really appreciate your detailed analysis and am using it to challenge my PCN. Unfortunately, TfL's site is down until Sunday for maintenance. How very convenient!
caddy
Hi,

I'm still waiting for clarification (up to 20 working days if at all) on whether the 622.1A sign can be used with 'any' weight designation since 2016, previously it was 7.5t and 18t, but this clarification is now missing since 2016, or at least I can't find it so it's anybody's guess.
If it can be 'any' weight since 2016 then the sign is valid and van drivers should know that a picture of a lorry means all goods vehicles including them and the 2t load means total gross laden vehicle weight, i.e. roughly anything bigger than a fiesta or corsa van.

I think we're waiting for actual photos of the proper signs rather than the advance warning signs just in case there's something amiss there.

As a lay person it looks as if there are a multitude of signs to take in. It's clear there's confusion with cabbies reportedly been turned away on the first day of enforcement and vans clearly still driving through as per the original photos.

I believe the usual advice is for the OP to post their PCN challenge for comment before submitting

-edit-
it's possible some of the wheelchair access vehicles or mobility vehicles fall foul of the 2t limit and this can't have been TfL's intention
DancingDad
QUOTE (caddy @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 13:46) *
...…...
it's possible some of the wheelchair access vehicles or mobility vehicles fall foul of the 2t limit and this can't have been TfL's intention


My 7 seater with a gross weight of 2.9 tonne would.
Except it is a passenger car not a goods vehicle.
Does make the 2t limit seem silly and one which is likely to catch many "white van" type vehicles but that is not a valid argument.


QUOTE (caddy @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 13:46) *
Hi,

I'm still waiting for clarification (up to 20 working days if at all) on whether the 622.1A sign can be used with 'any' weight designation since 2016, ……….


No point waiting, it can.
"6. The sign may have different numerals to those shown in the diagram. "
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made
Part 4(6) applies
hunpak
I drive a ford transit connect which is a very small van for work, unfortunately I have received 3x PCNs recently, I have seen the high viz officers at the start if tunnel, who never stopped me and always allowed me to drive through tbh I was not aware of any restriction on my small van.
Rotherhithe tunnel was part of my daily commute as I live in startford.

If any of you nice people can help compile a letter for appeal that would be amazing, i am totally a lay man at this and any PCN or parking ticket scares the life out of me.

PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (hunpak @ Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 20:34) *
I drive a ford transit connect which is a very small van for work, unfortunately I have received 3x PCNs recently, I have seen the high viz officers at the start if tunnel, who never stopped me and always allowed me to drive through tbh I was not aware of any restriction on my small van.
Rotherhithe tunnel was part of my daily commute as I live in startford.

If any of you nice people can help compile a letter for appeal that would be amazing, i am totally a lay man at this and any PCN or parking ticket scares the life out of me.



start your own thread and post one of the PCN's give us the date of contravention and the date of notice for the others
liffey
My husband went back to take photos last week and discovered that someone has spray painted over them:









cp8759
3 of the 4 images you've posted won't load?
liffey
Hopefully these work







Here's the CCTV

https://youtu.be/9HOMWrR-MSc
cp8759
Well you could challenge TFL on the basis that the advance warning signs have been vandalised, won't work if this happened after the PCN was issued though. Also the regulatory sign IMO is far too far back, by the time you reach it you have no lawful route left open to you.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.