For many years there’s been confusion among some van drivers over the speed limits that apply to their vans. This has led to many prosecutions of drivers of medium and large vans for exceeding the speed limit.
Many van drivers just assume that the speed limits for their vans are the same as for a private car. In many cases, particularly for smaller vans, they may be right, but for anything bigger than a small van they’re wrong.
The maximum speed limits for all goods vehicles of 3500kg and less, unless lower limits are indicated by signs, is 70mph for motorways, 60mph for dual-carriageways and 50mph for single-carriageway roads. The only exemption is for ‘car-derived vans’ with a maximum loaded weight (GVW) of 2000kg or less, to which the speed limits for cars apply (70, 70, 60).
For many years it seems that the police have interpreted ‘car-derived van’ as meaning any small van with a GVW of 2,000kg or less. This would include many of the vans typically driven by same day couriers, vans like the Escort, Courier, Berlingo/Partner, some Doblos, Combo, Nemo/Bipper/Fiorino, Kangoo, as well as some of the more obvious ‘car shaped’ vans like the Astravan, Fiesta, Corsa and Punto.
In December 2007 the Department for Transport (DfT) issued a document ‘Clarification of national speed limits for vans‘ which I actually ignored at the time because I could only find paraphrased reports of the document rather than the actual document itself. Anyway, I forgot all about it until I stumbled on it this morning while googling for something else. I have to say I’m astonished at how unclear the clarification is and even more astonished at the way they seem to be interpreting the law. Here’s the important bit:
“Q. Are there any exemptions from these lower speed limits for vans?
A. There is one (small) group of vans which have the same speed limits are cars by virtue of the definitions in Schedule 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act of 1984. These are vans that are both derived from a car chassis and also have a maximum laden weight of no more than 2 tonnes. This means that the weight of the vehicle and the payload it is designed to be able to carry when added together do not exceed 2 tonnes. The van design must be a derivative of a car body, it is not sufficient that it looks similar to a particular car.
Q. Which vans meet the criteria to be considered car derived vans for speed limit purposes?
A. Very few vans will meet the criteria to benefit from the same speed limits as a car. Those that do are likely to be similar to a Ford Fiesta van, Vauxhall Corsa or Renault Clio van in having maximum payloads of around 500kgs so that when combined with the weight of the vehicle unladen (normally around 1.4 tonnes) the maximum laden weight of the whole vehicle will not exceed 2 tonnes.
What this means is that vans such as the Ford Transit and (and of course the larger panel vans) will not meet the definition of car derived vans set out set out in part IV section 2 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Therefore these vehicles will be subject to speed limits of 50mph on single carriageways and 60 mph on dual carriageways.“
This guidance seems to ignore the very type of vehicle over which there is the most confusion, namely the type of van with a ‘car’ front end and a ‘box’ grafted onto the back. Vans in this class would include the Vauxhall Combo, Citroen Berlingo, Peugeot Partner, Renault Kangoo, Citroen Nemo etc., all of which have a maximum laden weight of under 2 tonnes.
Part IV Section 2 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states defines a car-derived van as “a goods vehicle which is constructed or adapted as a derivative of a passenger vehicle and which has a maximum laden weight not exceeding 2 tonnes;”. This definition makes no mention of the chassis or the body shape.
To use my examples of vans above; the Vauxhall Combo is clearly a derivative of the Vauxhall Corsa car, albeit with a different chassis and body shape, and could also be said to be ‘based on’ the Vauxhall Combo Kombi – a version of the Vauxhall Combo with rear seats and windows. Arguably the Kombi is based on the van rather than vice versa, but the fact remains that Kombi is a passenger car and shares its body shape and chassis with the van. Similarly the other vans mentioned, although not based on any passenger car, all have an ‘estate car’ (or ‘window van’ if you prefer) version – the Citroen Berlingo Multispace, Peugeot Partner Combi, Renault Kangoo MPV – with the exception of the Citroen Nemo which is the lightest, newest and most car-like to drive of the vans mentioned but does not yet have a ‘windowed’ version.
According to the DfT guidance the Combo, Berlingo, Partner and Kangoo, may possibly be classed as car-derived vans, depending on the importance placed on there being a near-identical passenger version available, while the smaller Citroen Nemo is subject to same speed limits as a 3,500kg Mercedes Sprinter, at least until a ‘car’ version of it becomes available.
This situation is clearly extremely confusing, particularly as the clarification neatly ducks the issue of classifying this particular type of vehicle, instead only mentioning larger and smaller sizes. More confusion is added because these vehicles are actually classified as car-derived vans on their V5 ‘log books’.
I’ve emailed the DfT for some clarification on this and if I don’t receive confirmation that ‘car-derived van’ on the log book means that car speed limits apply I’ll be contacting our local police and maybe ACPO for confirmation of how they interpret the law.
Posted under Courier Basics, Speeding, Vans
Posted by Alec at 7:48 pm, September 22, 2008
Good article – you’re right that a great many drivers don’t realise that speed limits are different to those for cars.
However, I’m not sure things are as confused as you say. The DfT page you link to also states that “the van design must be a derivative of a car body”. This clearly rules out all but car->van conversions, like the Astravan.
The DfT also says that taxation class is unrelated to speed limits. Speed limits (it says) are related to the load capacities of the vehicle and whether or not it is used for carrying passengers.
I do agree that it seems bizaare that a Nemo is subject to lower speed limits than an Astravan, however. I think it is a case of vehicle designs overtaking the law – these small vans with big payloads didn’t really exist in 1984, when the van speed limits were introduced, did they?
Thanks for taking the time to highlight this, look forward to seeing your response from the DfT…
Roland
Well I’ve had my reply:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your enquiry (copied below) and request that we list car-derived vans: Because of the limited definition in law of a car-derived van, the only test of whether an individual vehicle falls into that category is via a court of law. Government departments cannot make that judgement and so do not issue lists of car-derived vans.
When asked to comment on a specific vehicle this department has applied a rule of thumb that;
- vans sharing the same chassis and body shell with a car but with some of the window apertures filled with metal, appear to satisfy the definition of car-derived van.
- vans comprising a car chassis throughout and the car body-shell from front bumper to “B” post (the door-post behind the front-doors ;with, say, a box body behind), appear to satisfy the definition of car-derived van.
Using those criteria, this Division recently advised an enquirer that the Vauxhall Combo did not appear to be a car-derived van since its wheel-base and track are different from those of the Corsa car. However, we added the caveat that our advice was subject to any decision made in a court of law. In the case of the Vauxhall Combo Kombi; this vehicle appears to be derived from the Combo van not the other way about. And therefore the Combo cannot be described as car-derived.
To answer your last point, about the police application of the law: As the law stands at present the only recourse for a motorist is to challenge the speeding prosecution in court.
I regret that I cannot advise you further.
Malcolm Burch
Senior Policy Advisor
LRI 2
Department for Transport
I can’t see really this ever coming up in court to provide a definitive answer. For once the police seem to apply the law in the way any reasonable person would expect it to be applied – if the vehicle is registered as a car-derived van and has a GVW of 2000kg or less then (as far as I’m aware) they treat it as being subject to the same speed limits as a car.
As far as I can tell all small vans with a GVW of 2000kg or less are automatically registered with the DVLA as ‘car-derived vans’, while all small vans with a GVW of over 2000kg are registered as ‘panel vans’. It seems to me that the police use the vehicle definition that’s returned when they search the DVLA database to determine the vehicle classification and therefore the applicable speed limits.
Despite the assertion of the Senior Policy Advisor from the DfT I’ve never heard of a Berlingo or Combo driver being prosecuted for doing 70 on a dual carriageway – Caddy drivers, Transit Connect drivers and Doblo drivers, yes; but I’ve never heard of a driver of a vehicle with ‘car-derived van’ on its V5 Vehicle Registration Document being prosecuted for doing 70 on a dual-carriageway, or 60 on a single-carriageway. If anyone knows different then please let me know.
It turns out that not all vans under 2000kg GVW are described as CDVs on their V5. I’ve seen examples of a Doblo and a Kangoo both described as ‘panel van’, so it seems that the V5 description can’t be used to define the vehicle type.
I have a ticket for a Vauxhall Combo for 69mph on the A27 dual-carriageway at Holmbush (Hove/Portslade) dated 23/08/2008. It is a hire van (long-term) and I do not have the registration document. Sussex police, by the way.
I am so confused now . I have just bought a vauxhall combo and start a new contract same day delivery tomorrow. What the hell speed am I spose to be doing ! Surely if your V5 states its a car derived van then thats your answer…. it is a govenment document after all ??????? isnt it ????
I cant take a day off to argue it in court everytime I get flashed by a stuffing camera. They need to get their heads out their backsides and sort it out !
great web site, please could you help me,i have just got a notice of intended prosecution, in a v.w. caddy,tdi.reg 02.it tell me recorded speed was 76mph,speed limit 70 mph,vehichle limit 60 mph. the registration certificate says its a panel van,light goods vehicle,2270kg cross revenue weight,wheelplan 2 axle-rigid body,vehicle category N1.is this a fine i should pay? or is the law wrong here? greatful for any help thankyou dave
The important thing in the case of the Caddy is the weight – it’s firmly in the ‘goods vehicle’ class, rather than being a car-derived van, and it’s subject to the lower limits. Sorry about that.
thanks alec for reply, but i have look at manufacturers plate,it says 1770 kg then 2770 kg, (1)-890kg,(2)-950kg,typ 9kvf,looking at this plate,i think it means 1770kg is the g.v.w.is the vehicle weight?and the 2770kg is the revenue weight for taxin of the van? i could be wrong,i have been in touch with v,w, an they tell me that my van is on the volkswagen germany data system as a caddy derived van 66 tdi 5 speed. any more advice thanks david
dear alec,any comment on david (9)posted february 1 st 2009?
I missed the ’02 plate’ of your original message – that’s an old shape Caddy, the same as the SEAT Inca? If so it’s under 2000 GVW so it would pass as a CDV on that point but may fail on another point. I don’t think that the front end is identical to a Polo or an Ibiza, in which case it would probably fail on the DfT’s ridiculous definition of a CDV – if you pay any attention to their opinion.
hi Alec,yes it is the old shape caddy,and i do feel the police are wrong,because they told me my van,was not a car derived van,but on the log book it is,but then they told me it gos on the weight of my van,and the only weight on the log book was 2770 kg under revenue weight,there seem to be alot of confused people about a cdv van? i am not to sure what to do at the moment,pay the fine,or go to court?at this moment of time i think i should try the courts,what do you think? thanks Alec
As far as I’m aware the revenue weight on the log book is always the same as the GVW, and 1770kg is about right for the old Caddy – it’s definitely under the 2000kg anyway. The 2770 is the Gross Train Weight, which has no bearing at all on the issue, it just shows you how much weight you can tow. Have you got an error on your log book maybe?
So if they’re JUST basing their prosecution on the weight issue then you’ll be OK, as long as you can convince the court that the actual GVW of the van is less than 2000kg. If there’s an error on your log book then you probably just need to contact the DVLA to get it corrected.
If the police decide to argue that the van’s not car-derived because of the shape then you’re back in that grey area I’m afraid. Personally I think you could maybe convince a court that it was similar enough to the Inca or Polo to be classed as car-derived. Even if that was to fail then the argument that it clearly has filled in rear window panels, holes for the fitting of rear seatbelt anchorages and a filled in rear passenger footwell area may be enough to show that the van is based on the car (windowed version of the van) rather than the other way round.
What I don’t understand is that the Renault Kangoo is actually a van derived car. Until some time after the car version was released, people were advised that the speed limit for vans applied to the car – because I know someone who had one from new and was advised of this by the local plod.