Prev: For those who enjoy stunning pics (Iceland volcano)
Next: Designer Blouses
From: Steve Smith on 26 Apr 2010 06:50
On 24 Apr, 11:18, NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote:

> A couple of small points,
> 2, The limiter on their new toy will have to be disabled in order for
> it to catch and pull alongside targets. Do they have special
> dispensation to ignore the safety laws introduced for the rest of us
> and if not is their evidence gathered by illegal means still
> admissable?

I thought the limiters on most trucks were set at 56mph to optimise
fuel consumption rather than to comply with a law? As the limit for
LGVs on a motorway is 60mph, isn't it legal for the police to drive at
60, and overtake the majority of trucks which are limited to 56mph?

Is there an actual law somewhere that says trucks must not exceed
56mph?

Not having a go, this is a genuine enquiry.

Thanks,

Steve.
From: Adrian on 26 Apr 2010 06:54
Steve Smith <stevesmith(a)unforgettable.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

> Is there an actual law somewhere that says trucks must not exceed 56mph?

Yes.

The fitment of a speed limiter set no higher than 90kph is part of the
C&U regs.
From: Man at B&Q on 26 Apr 2010 07:14
On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:59963544-ea8f-4cd8-810b-ff018b154734(a)h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 24 Apr, 08:49, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjack...(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:nvJVxvIzPg0LFwQu(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>
> >> > In message <emnAn.339247$0t.18...(a)newsfe17.ams2>, Zaz <z...(a)zaz.zaz>
> >> > writes
> >> >>On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:03:21 -0700, "Man at B&Q"
> >> >><manatba...(a)hotmail.com>
> >> >>wrote:
>
> >> >>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7620972/Police-lorry-
> >> >>catches-trucker-cooking-his-dinner-while-driving.html
>
> >> >>Picture of said truck here:
>
> >> >><http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2009/10/23/cops-higher-u
> >> >>p-to-halt-truck-dangers-97319-24998215/>
>
> >> > I would have thought something like a Google Street View car would have
> >> > been cheaper!
>
> >> Cheaper than free? The vehicle used by the police was on loan. Plus, an
> >> artic is less distinctive than a car with a post with a ball on top
> >> poking
> >> out of the roof.
>
> > A couple of small points,
>
> > 1, The wrong lorry is selected, even if it is free it's not right, the
> > Scania depicted has the lowest seat height of all heavy trucks thus
> > they will only be able to see inside other Scanias or smaller trucks,
> > Had they got a Renault Magnum then they would have been able to see
> > down into just about any cab. Their target market will be heavy
> > trucks, smaller supermarket delivery types and rigids will have day
> > drivers thus are most unlikely to be committing the offences listed.
>
> > 2, The limiter on their new toy will have to be disabled in order for
> > it to catch and pull alongside targets. Do they have special
> > dispensation to ignore the safety laws introduced for the rest of us
> > and if not is their evidence gathered by illegal means still
> > admissable?
>
> > This smacks of a publicity excercise and has little merit as a serious
> > deterrant. however just in case I shall take more care whilst tending
> > to my food or making the coffee, I already keep the DVD amd TV out of
> > sight, except from inside the cab, anyway.
>
> It also smacks of one copper pursuing an agenda to his own advantage and WM
> Police taking advantage of a resource that most forces don't have.  The
> copper named in the article has appeared on one of the "look at what these
> naughty motorists get up to" type programmes and has said that he used to be
> a lorry driver, has kept his LGV licence up to date and that he's never
> happier than when he's driving a lorry.

Ppoacher turned Gamekeeper. Set a thief to catch a thief, etc. Sounds
like he's well qualified.

MBQ
From: Conor on 26 Apr 2010 13:29
On 26/04/2010 11:50, Steve Smith wrote:

> I thought the limiters on most trucks were set at 56mph to optimise
> fuel consumption rather than to comply with a law?

No. They're set at roughly 90KPH/56MPH to comply with the speed limit
for Europe.

> As the limit for
> LGVs on a motorway is 60mph, isn't it legal for the police to drive at
> 60, and overtake the majority of trucks which are limited to 56mph?
>
It is as long as they are using a HGV registered before 1/1/1988 or, on
a vehicle registered after that, using overrun but not driven motion. As
they're not using a lorry registered before 1/1/1988 they have to have a
speed limiter fitted. Therefore they cannot catch up lorries other than
on uphills or if the target vehicles have limiters set slightly lower.

> Is there an actual law somewhere that says trucks must not exceed
> 56mph?
>
Its an EU Directive and the law is that there must be a mechanical or
electronic speed limiter fitted to all lorries >7.5t registered after
1/1/1988 and it must be calibrated to 85KPH +/- a percentage which
usually works out at 90KPH/56MPH..

> Not having a go, this is a genuine enquiry.
>
It was taken as such.

--
Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: GeoffC on 30 Apr 2010 17:34
Adrian wrote:
> Steve Smith <stevesmith(a)unforgettable.com> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>> Is there an actual law somewhere that says trucks must not exceed
>> 56mph?
>
> Yes.
>
> The fitment of a speed limiter set no higher than 90kph is part of the
> C&U regs.

So a lorry reaches a downhill stretch and manages to coast up to 60mph
(which the limiter does not prevent), is that illegal then?

--

Geoff


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: For those who enjoy stunning pics (Iceland volcano)
Next: Designer Blouses