Police checking motorhomes and caravans on M5

[headlight]

 

[akadingbat]

Perhaps, if it is genuinely about ensuring that all are safe then perhaps it should be combined with some sort of educational publicity?

Not sure that revenue generated by needs the investment in equipment and manpower or the fact that scarce resource is being taken away fro other important areas

It was mainly done for road safety as there are a lot of accidents on this road especially when it changes between single carriageway and dual carriageway. When you consider that every fatal accident costs about £2m it soon pays for itself by reducing accidents.

 

[Apacheman]

I’m really struggling with the mentality of a number of these posts. Perhaps it is because I’m a retired police officer. Anyone criticising such checks should question why? Is it because you knowingly run overweight and think it’s ok for you to do so? Is your van unroadworthy but it’s ok because you’re a good driver and you won’t be involved in an accident? Speed limits are for poor drivers and I’m such a good driver I don’t need to stick to them? I know there’s no tread on my tyres but I only drive when it’s dry and they give me better grip. I’ve heard and seen it all in my time. I don’t get it. If my van had been nicked I’d want the bastards catching. Whether I’d want the van back or not is a different matter. If there’s people out there driving without insurance I want them stopped. It costs me a fortune to insure vehicles so why shouldn’t they. If there’s dangerous vehicles out there I want them dealt with and put off the road until they are safe. Im beginning to get why Motorhomers are classed as Motormoaners?

 

[nicholsong]

I’m really struggling with the mentality of a number of these posts. Perhaps it is because I’m a retired police officer. Anyone criticising such checks should question why? Is it because you knowingly run overweight and think it’s ok for you to do so? Is your van unroadworthy but it’s ok because you’re a good driver and you won’t be involved in an accident? Speed limits are for poor drivers and I’m such a good driver I don’t need to stick to them? I know there’s no tread on my tyres but I only drive when it’s dry and they give me better grip. I’ve heard and seen it all in my time. I don’t get it. If my van had been nicked I’d want the bastards catching. Whether I’d want the van back or not is a different matter. If there’s people out there driving without insurance I want them stopped. It costs me a fortune to insure vehicles so why shouldn’t they. If there’s dangerous vehicles out there I want them dealt with and put off the road until they are safe. Are we Motorhomers or Motormoaners?

Our MH is always underweight because we do a weighbridge check. It is also kept in a roadworthy state.

If all drivers ensured that their vehicles were the same there would not be a need for so many DVSA checks The checks are induced by the non-compliant drivers.

I would resent my half-hour delay caused by those non-compliant drivers.

 

[Jimbohorlicks]

Our MH is always underweight because we do a weighbridge check. It is also kept in a roadworthy state.

If all drivers ensured that their vehicles were the same there would not be a need for so many DVSA checks The checks are induced by the non-compliant drivers.

I would resent my half-hour delay caused by those non-compliant drivers.

I wouldn't resent any delay if it takes uninsured , unroadworthy vehicles off the road. OK it's an inconvenience but worth it.

I can't see how these stops ate police cash cows when only a few vehicles are actually taken off the roads nd fines issued compared to the cost of the operation

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Apacheman]

Our MH is always underweight because we do a weighbridge check. It is also kept in a roadworthy state.

If all drivers ensured that their vehicles were the same there would not be a need for so many DVSA checks The checks are induced by the non-compliant drivers.

I would resent my half-hour delay caused by those non-compliant drivers.

I don’t like being stood in motorway tailbacks but I always say I’m glad I’m in the tailback and not the cause. It’s a part of life and having got through one I’m happy to continue my journey. If I got stopped at a check and was allowed to continue without issue I’d be a happy too.

 

[hja]

Pretty much each December the local police set up random drink/drug check pull in over the road from our house. The majority seem to go on their way with no issue or penalty. Local opinion seems to always be of the view that the few minute delay was fine because we hope either police apprehend culprits, or make people more wary of driving while under the influence. Sentiments I agree with. I view roadside weight checks in the same way. We hope we are not overloaded, we have checked with a weighbridge before but there is no local facility for us to use regularly, unfortunately. We are very careful about not just adding stuff, and we do have a regular clearout of what we are not using.

 

[gus-lopez]

I'm surprised the authorities (tax collectors) haven't introduced MOTs for caravans and trailers.
Not an MOT issue but many must be running on original tyres....

they did when the Uk was still a club member.They,along with Ireland gave it the finger , as they also did with the "cross border " directive encompassing 8 offences: only having to implement it when the EU changed it from motoring to a safety issue which a country could not refuse to endorse.so the Uk should have had them many years ago long before eu intervention.See some of the rubbish people tow around, especially farmers & caravanners makes you wonder why it has never been done

It was done by Junction 27 no Tiverton a few years ago, and M5 before

Carol

Long before J27 dvsa weighbridge the police used to mount enforcement when they knew the santander >plymouth boat had arrived & would take the artics along to the weighbridge of Lloyd Maunder Ltd at Willand between 27 & j28, for checking

Not all can be uprated to 3850 without modification. Also not much help if you don’t have a C1. Anyone younger than 45 is unlikely to have a C1 and those of us over 70 have to jump through medical hoops to keep it. I am not going to do another stress test to keep my C1 next year, far too stressful.

If theyd stayed in the club you would be getting 4250kgs on a B licence as from January 2025

the same ones who had been complaining!

always is

taken off the roads nd fines issued compared to the cost of the operation

What additional cost would there be? They are still being paid even if doing nothing?

 

[poppycamper]

Our MH is always underweight because we do a weighbridge check.

And us too.... However the point is how many through ignorance don't even know what weight they should be... Hire vans, Newbie, never mind that they even consider the subject...
And with the many "not fit for purpose" vans, payload wise out there how many just chance it cause they have no option other than leave MoHo on their driveway??

 

[Old Gibber]

I think once the penny drops how many are overloaded and the potential cash cow this could create we shall see more of these checks. I may sound cynical and I am in no way advocating driving with an overweight vehicle, but these days it has very little to do with safety and more to do with revenue collection. It gets my why they can call speed camera vans “safety units” if they had anything to do with safety they would scream at you and force you to slow down and make your journey safer. Sending you a fine through the post 10 days later has done nothing to promote your safety. They are revenue generators and nothing more, just another form of tax.

Unbelievable. So far 56 people have "liked" with this post, yet there have been only a few raising opposite views, yet there are some glaring inaccuracies in the above statement. Firstly, as has been said the revenue collection goes straight to the Treasury. So... speeding fines make no difference. Really??? All I can say such people who are not phased by speeding tickets ought to be banned from driving for life not just a couple of years.

I would like to ask the OP and the 56 others who take this stance the following questions:
1. If we don't fine those who break the rules of the road, (which by the way are a privilege not an entitlement), how they would punish drivers who break the rules?
2. Would they prefer a free for all where drivers could do what they want, drive on either side of the road, ignore traffic lights speed etc.
3. Would journeys be any better with many more roads closed due to serious accidents and A&E already overloaded, simply collapsing under the weight of admissions, and obviously far higher insurance premiums?
4. The money from fines goes straight to government coffers. Would you rather higher taxes instead?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Chrisvh]

Unbelievable. So far 56 people have "liked" with this post, yet there have been only a few raising opposite views, yet there are some glaring inaccuracies in the above statement. Firstly, as has been said the revenue collection goes straight to the Treasury. So... speeding fines make no difference. Really??? All I can say such people who are not phased by speeding tickets ought to be banned from driving for life not just a couple of years.

I would like to ask the OP and the 56 others who take this stance the following questions:
1. If we don't fine those who break the rules of the road, (which by the way are a privilege not an entitlement), how they would punish drivers who break the rules?
2. Would they prefer a free for all where drivers could do what they want, drive on either side of the road, ignore traffic lights speed etc.
3. Would journeys be any better with many more roads closed due to serious accidents and A&E already overloaded, simply collapsing under the weight of admissions, and obviously far higher insurance premiums?
4. The money from fines goes straight to government coffers. Would you rather higher taxes instead?

I think you just have to accept that there are some very eccentric motorhome owners and quite a lot of them are on this forum. To be charitable I suppose you have to say Vive la Difference.

 

[Apacheman]

Last year was the 30th anniversary of the Bolton Brow crash disaster. As a traffic officer I was one of the first emergency services on the scene. It will be forever imprinted in my memory. 6 people died that day when the brakes failed on a 30t tipper lorry. The company had failed to maintain the lorry in a roadworthy condition. It was one of the events that led to a change in the law and the introduction of corporate manslaughter. For anyone who thinks checks are a waste of resources, cash cows etc etc, I hope you, your family or friends are never touched by such tragedy.

 

[3crispies]

Ooooh..........another VDub owner.
Nice, don't feel so alone now .
Yes,was very surprised as was thinking might have to go for uprating at first, but now will easily work with what I have got, and as we are downsizing, we are getting shut of a LOT of clutter.
Different strokes for different folks!

Had our bay for 15+ years too. Get a garland you will fit right in............

 

[Captain Yoghurtpot]

Had our bay for 15+ years too. Get a garland you will fit right in............

Why do I need a garland?
Is it a bit like displaying the upside down pineapple outside your door when on sites etc indicating perhaps you may be receptive to some mixed 'Adult' fun, or like having pampas grass in your front garden?
I only know of such activities from what I have read

 

[Barclaybasher]

Most accidents involve driver error, the condition of the vehicle might make matters worse - that's it.
Regardless of a MOT a vehicle must always be roadworthy
lmprove driving awareness, hit drink and drug drivers harder - electronic tags to stop or catch reoffenders......

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[The Artilleryman]

Whilst loading my box trailer today, I took the time to do a comprehensive nose weight check.

Started with the main item and then as each further large item was loaded to check nose weight.

Very insightful, started off at 110kg and finished at 75kg, giving me a good idea of how to vary the nose weight with extra items (I'll not bore you with the specifics).

 

[Graydo]

I wasnt aware that you could dispatch a chicken by sticking a strawberry up its ae*e ! I wonder how hard and how far it needs to go

It's not sticking it up it's ar5e that kills it.

Its how hard you pullet out.

I'll get my coat

Graydo

 

[stewartwebr]

Unbelievable. So far 56 people have "liked" with this post, yet there have been only a few raising opposite views, yet there are some glaring inaccuracies in the above statement. Firstly, as has been said the revenue collection goes straight to the Treasury. So... speeding fines make no difference. Really??? All I can say such people who are not phased by speeding tickets ought to be banned from driving for life not just a couple of years.

I would like to ask the OP and the 56 others who take this stance the following questions:
1. If we don't fine those who break the rules of the road, (which by the way are a privilege not an entitlement), how they would punish drivers who break the rules?
2. Would they prefer a free for all where drivers could do what they want, drive on either side of the road, ignore traffic lights speed etc.
3. Would journeys be any better with many more roads closed due to serious accidents and A&E already overloaded, simply collapsing under the weight of admissions, and obviously far higher insurance premiums?
4. The money from fines goes straight to government coffers. Would you rather higher taxes instead?

I think you need to go back and read my post! The point being made had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the vans or in anyway condones excessive speed. It was the typical political spin applied by government calling the speed camera vans “Safety Vans”. When really they do absolutely nothing to remove the IMMEDIATE risk. Of course it is correct eventually when a summons appears and points are added to the offenders license the offender shall think twice and likewise have a better understanding of speed and the impact and dangers it creates if they attend a speed awareness course.
However, the point I was making, if the Safety Van were really there for safety it should not be covertly hidden behind bushes or over the brow of a hill and more importantly would attempt to remove the IMMEDIATE risk by alerting the driver to the risk they are creating by the excessive speed. This would surely create a safer environment where currently the covert van allows the risk to continue endangering other motorists by doing nothing more than collecting an image as evidence and creating revenue stream for government. As stated a true “Safety Van” would make an immediate intervention in some way and reduce risk to make things safer. Currently they do nothing, how can they be safety vans, they are revenue collectors, nothing more.
I think I am perhaps better placed than most to understand the consequences of speed. Having spent most of my younger days as a Trauma Specialist (Medic1 Air Ambulance) regrettably I have seen more than most. Then in my later years as Trauma Consultant in a number of EDs across the U.K. I am very aware the strain and load RTIs place on our NHS.

 

[Tigger-Tim]

Most accidents involve driver error, the condition of the vehicle might make matters worse - that's it.
Regardless of a MOT a vehicle must always be roadworthy
lmprove driving awareness, hit drink and drug drivers harder - electronic tags to stop or catch reoffenders......

It is bonkers that we test our cars every year, but not our drivers.

If we were really serious about cutting road deaths, we would focus on the biggest cause - the drivers.

A driving theory test only costs £22. We could start by requiring every driver to re-do the theory test every three years.

The highway code gets updated every few years, but most of us have not read it since passing our tests. Which could be 40, 50, 60 years ago.

 

[Sparkie44]

No warrant card proves they are not police and not on official police business. Therefore have no more right to park on a pavement etc than any member of the public. To be prosecuted a police officer has to report you for the offence. If they were not there, how can they be certain an offence occurred? Plus why are the speeding wombles allowed to break the law with immunity?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[headlight]

Unbelievable. So far 56 people have "liked" with this post, yet there have been only a few raising opposite views, yet there are some glaring inaccuracies in the above statement. Firstly, as has been said the revenue collection goes straight to the Treasury. So... speeding fines make no difference. Really??? All I can say such people who are not phased by speeding tickets ought to be banned from driving for life not just a couple of years.

I would like to ask the OP and the 56 others who take this stance the following questions:
1. If we don't fine those who break the rules of the road, (which by the way are a privilege not an entitlement), how they would punish drivers who break the rules?
2. Would they prefer a free for all where drivers could do what they want, drive on either side of the road, ignore traffic lights speed etc.
3. Would journeys be any better with many more roads closed due to serious accidents and A&E already overloaded, simply collapsing under the weight of admissions, and obviously far higher insurance premiums?
4. The money from fines goes straight to government coffers. Would you rather higher taxes instead?

I started the thread as I am in agreement with the checks so I don't understand why you have included me in the above ?
My motorhome is kept in a roadworthy condition and is weighed to make sure I am not overweight.

 

[MichaelT]

I think you need to go back and read my post! The point being made had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the vans or in anyway condones excessive speed. It was the typical political spin applied by government calling the speed camera vans “Safety Vans”. When really they do absolutely nothing to remove the IMMEDIATE risk. Of course it is correct eventually when a summons appears and points are added to the offenders license the offender shall think twice and likewise have a better understanding of speed and the impact and dangers it creates if they attend a speed awareness course.
However, the point I was making, if the Safety Van were really there for safety it should not be covertly hidden behind bushes or over the brow of a hill and more importantly would attempt to remove the IMMEDIATE risk by alerting the driver to the risk they are creating by the excessive speed. This would surely create a safer environment where currently the covert van allows the risk to continue endangering other motorists by doing nothing more than collecting an image as evidence and creating revenue stream for government. As stated a true “Safety Van” would make an immediate intervention in some way and reduce risk to make things safer. Currently they do nothing, how can they be safety vans, they are revenue collectors, nothing more.
I think I am perhaps better placed than most to understand the consequences of speed. Having spent most of my younger days as a Trauma Specialist (Medic1 Air Ambulance) regrettably I have seen more than most. Then in my later years as Trauma Consultant in a number of EDs across the U.K. I am very aware the strain and load RTIs place on our NHS.

Yep police hiding on a bridge on A14 every Sunday morning when the roads are empty with a speed gun, no safety in mind only revenue collecting and nothing better to do (probably being paid overtime). Yet you see mindless, selfish idiots hogging the middle lane which is a safety issue as it forces people to swerve 3 lanes or undertake but PC plod is obviously not bothered as it would involve some degree of policing. Better to warn people there are mobile cameras ahead so they slow down which would actually do something but do it when it's busy not on an empty road.

 

[Birdy67]

Perhaps their bigger concern was 'roadworthy condition'...so potentially tyres (and brakes)...the once a year trip with your caravan on 12 yr old "Wankang Ditchfinder" tyres. Should I swap my 10 yr old tyres? crops up on here fairly regularly.
Weightwise...I'm still staggered that people will pay tens of thousands on a motorhome/campervan but baulk at paying a tenner (and maybe a 50 mile round trip) to get it weighed to have a starting point. (As others have suggested in the past, perhaps all motorhomes sold by a trader should have a recent weight 'certificate' ?)

Wish it was that easy. A quick google of Surrey weigh stations brings up zero options. I called the local (Epsom) recycling centre and the guy said he would charge me £60 to weigh our motorhome.

I would love to be weighed fully laden as I'm a little in the dark how close we'd come to being overweight, but finding somewhere to get this done is not easy, particularly if you live in Surrey it seems.

 

[MichaelT]

Wish it was that easy. A quick google of Surrey weigh stations brings up zero options. I called the local (Epsom) recycling centre and the guy said he would charge me £60 to weigh our motorhome.

I would love to be weighed fully laden as I'm a little in the dark how close we'd come to being overweight, but finding somewhere to get this done is not easy, particularly if you live in Surrey, Kent, Sussex, it seems.

Not an uncommon problem.

 

[RowleyBirkinQC]

Wish it was that easy. A quick google of Surrey weigh stations brings up zero options. I called the local (Epsom) recycling centre and the guy said he would charge me £60 to weigh our motorhome.

I would love to be weighed fully laden as I'm a little in the dark how close we'd come to being overweight, but finding somewhere to get this done is not easy, particularly if you live in Surrey, Kent, Sussex, it seems.

£60 is madness. We use an agricultural company’s weigh bridge, £10.50 with ticket, sometimes no charge without.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Bessy765]

Where we often go in France there is a weigh-bridge anyone can use 2 Euro and prints out a ticket simple.

 

[Drexxer]

Briggs Metals Newark, £5 with a ticket

www.recyclemetals.org/recyclerDirectory/briggs-metals-limited.html

 

[Birdy67]

£60 is madness. We use an agricultural company’s weigh bridge, £10.50 with ticket, sometimes no charge without.

I did tell him that, in slightly more industrial language!

 

[Dorset Diver]

I started the thread as I am in agreement with the checks so I don't understand why you have included me in the above ?
My motorhome is kept in a roadworthy condition and is weighed to make sure I am not overweight.

Would it not be better to weigh the van to ensure it is not overweight?

 

[Puddleduck]

Most accidents involve driver error, the condition of the vehicle might make matters worse - that's it.
Regardless of a MOT a vehicle must always be roadworthy
lmprove driving awareness, hit drink and drug drivers harder - electronic tags to stop or catch reoffenders......

The driver error might be getting into and driving an unroadworthy vehicle.

It is bonkers that we test our cars every year, but not our drivers.

If we were really serious about cutting road deaths, we would focus on the biggest cause - the drivers.

A driving theory test only costs £22. We could start by requiring every driver to re-do the theory test every three years.

The highway code gets updated every few years, but most of us have not read it since passing our tests. Which could be 40, 50, 60 years ago.

And make sure an optician's certificate is submitted.

Wish it was that easy. A quick google of Surrey weigh stations brings up zero options. I called the local (Epsom) recycling centre and the guy said he would charge me £60 to weigh our motorhome.

I would love to be weighed fully laden as I'm a little in the dark how close we'd come to being overweight, but finding somewhere to get this done is not easy, particularly if you live in Surrey it seems.

We use a local haulage company. They have to weigh their vehicles for every trip and are happy to weigh the van for £8 - total van weight and rear axle including ticket. Several local farms also have weighbridges but are not "official" public facilities and don't issue tickets.

I phoned our local council to get the contact details of weighbridges in our area and they were very helpful.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[hja]

Wish it was that easy. A quick google of Surrey weigh stations brings up zero options. I called the local (Epsom) recycling centre and the guy said he would charge me £60 to weigh our motorhome.

I would love to be weighed fully laden as I'm a little in the dark how close we'd come to being overweight, but finding somewhere to get this done is not easy, particularly if you live in Surrey it seems.

We weighed the van for the first time on our return journey from our first trip out. We don’t have a local weigh bridge. So I made an educated calculation from brochure weight plus allowances for wind out awning etc. We also weighed everything that went into the van, and recorded it. So when we went away I thought would be ok and on going to the weigh bridge found we were ok. I made a note of amounts of water, grey water, fuel so we could adjust accordingly.