| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I was referring to the two posts immediately preceding mine.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Back to original problem. My Renault Kangoo van is a car-derived van. Both the specifications and the Registration Certificate show the Gross Vehicle weight as below 2,000Kg. It is possible to get a Kangoo model which has gross weight just over 2,000Kg (2077 and 2109Kg), but they are few and far between - costs £300 extra and gives a payload capacity of (nominal) 800Kg which is quite a load for that size van. Normal whitevanman payload for Kangoo is 650 Kgs and this will probably apply to all similar vans - Berlingo, Combo, etc, etc. That DVLA website statement is very incorrect as far as my Kangoo is concerned (it's the next model up in size/weight from the Renault Clio they quote).
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigPerk
Frequent Visitor
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1618
Location: East Hertfordshire
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is there a difference between gross weight (DennisN) and laden weight (DVLA)? DVLA's description above seems to mean the weight of vehicle plus weight of load mustn't exceed 2000KG. Even if that's the case, the camera can't know the total weight, so it must be going on something else.
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's the vehicle type not the actual weight at the time of the photo. Gross weight and total laden weight in this context both mean the same thing, namely the total overall weight for which the vehicle is designed/manufactured. If the (commercial) vehicle can be loaded to more than 2,000Kg gross (vehicle plus payload) it is covered by this speed limit law.
Notice that in the website guidance it adds that a vehicle which can operate at much more than 2,000Kg, but unloaded weighs less than 2,000Kg is STILL governed by the law when it isn't carrying anything.
So the registration details will tell either ANPR camera or the office checking person that the vehicle is a speed restricted vehicle. A landrover van is speed restricted (I believe), a landrover car isn't. What's that about the Law is an ass?
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
inspiredron
Frequent Visitor
Joined: Dec 17, 2006
Posts: 302
Location: Ellesmere UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So where do motorhomes fit into these limits - and are the limits different over and under 3500kg? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anita
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Mar 15, 2006
Posts: 3219
Location: Windlesham, Surrey
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
A quick Google found this.
_________________
Anita
TomTom VIA 135 - App 12.075
UK map 1125.12264
Samsung Galaxy S21 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
253
Lifetime Member
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Posts: 1058
Location: The green bit between the M40, M4 and M25.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anita wrote: | | A quick Google found this. |
I've not actually had a look - so leaving myself wide open - but isn't / wasn't there a section in Highway Code about this as well??
In the dim and murky past when I last looked I thought there was a section about speeds and trailers, motorways and non motorways, weights of vehicles etc.
Or was that RoadCrafty?
_________________
Triumph Tbird 1700. And now a Bonnie T100. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
inspiredron
Frequent Visitor
Joined: Dec 17, 2006
Posts: 302
Location: Ellesmere UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anita wrote: | | A quick Google found this. |
Thanks, Anita - Phew! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darren wrote: | Interesting. There has been much debate on these but nothing concrete as to how they achieve this 'skill'.
If the decision as to what is and is not a Goods Vehicle is based on DVLA data then each camera would need both ANPR and a live link to the DVLA or a regularly updated database in each camera.
|
Even old-fashioned Gatsos, can differentiate between cars and lorries
Here are a couple of pictures of the Gatso "Radar 24" unit that is inside the boxes (from a post of mine back in 2008!):
On the first you can see there are TWO sets of switches with numbers for entering the speed limit settings in mph ("40" and "41" in this case). Next to the lower set you can clearly see a picture of a car. Next to the upper set is actually a picture of a lorry, but it is obscured by the top cover in that picture.
In the second picture (a km/h version), everything is a bit blurry, but you can definitely see the picture of a lorry.
The yellow rotary switch between the two sets looks like it is used to select the upper, the lower, or both settings, giving the possibility of dual speed detection for different vehicle types. How often it is used like this I don't know.
As for how it's ACTUALLY enforced on any sort of camera, I think there might just be some human intervention, where the camera "flags up" a query and a real person eyeballs the pictures and checks the number plates against the DVLA records?
With the labour situation a the moment, that's often cheaper than inventing technology to do it!
_________________
"Settling in nicely" ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Uh, you're quoting a post of mine from three years ago! I know they have two speed mode settings now 
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darren wrote: | | Uh, you're quoting a post of mine from three years ago! |
Beg to differ!
The post I quoted from was definitely one of mine from May 08, 2008 11:52 pm
Wanna compare post dates? 
_________________
"Settling in nicely" ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You misunderstand, in the post above, from you, at the beginning you quote me and something I wrote in 2009. I was querying why you included that, not what you wrote 
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As the strength of a radar return is proportional to the radar cross sectional area of the target and the inverse 4th root of distance (which can be ignored here as the distance remains the same), it is be fairly easy to tell the difference between a 'large' target and a 'small' one. Some empirical measurements could be used to set the threshold between large and small, and the Mk. 1 eyball of the person looking at the resultant snaps would be the ultimate arbiter. And that's not a quote from anyone.
PS Why does the edit button on my previous post tell me I can only edit my own posts? It is mine.
PPS What previous post? I must have hit the X button 
I'm surprised that someone has not corrected me already. Signal strength is inversely proportional to range to the power of 4 NOT the 4th root as I sad above |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| M8TJT wrote: | | I'm surprised that someone has not corrected me already. Signal strength is inversely proportional to range to the power of 4 NOT the 4th root as I sad above |
That's only because it's taken my dear old granny this long to read it - she shouted "********" as soon as she saw it!
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darren wrote: | | You misunderstand, in the post above, from you, at the beginning you quote me and something I wrote in 2009. I was querying why you included that, not what you wrote |
Ah I see! 
At the time I posted, I'm sure there was some logic in it...
I knew at the time I was quoting an old post of yours, but it was to illustrate a newer post...
Now all I've got to work out is where on earth that post is, 'cos it doesn't seem to be in this topic!
_________________
"Settling in nicely" ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![]() Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
