SuperLez:
More on the C1E debate - have heard that the towing vehicle must weigh more than the trailer - but don’t quote me for sure.
This appears to mean that if the unit is the lighter part, then a CE would be needed to drive it. Can’t see the point of this exercise.
The gross or mam weight of the trailer shouldn’t exceed the unladen weight of the unit, but as it’s unlikely that the trailer mam weight would be exactly the same as the units unladen weight I’d say you’ve heard right.
Description of category C1+E
Combinations of vehicles where the towing vehicle is in subcategory C1 and its trailer has a MAM of over 750kg provided that the MAM of the combination thus formed does not exceed 12000kg and the MAM of the trailer does not exceed the unladen mass of the towing vehicle. (If you passed your category B test prior to 1.1.1997 you will be restricted to a total weight not more than 8250kg)
Cheers for that tachograph, I read your post as being the definition of Cat “C,” but mrpj has pointed out that C1 is a sub-category, so that seems to sort it.
So does that mean that you only quoted part of the overall definition of Cat “C”?
If so, that’s how I got myself wondering.
Sorry tachograph, now I think I know what you meant.
smile!:
one guy told me you can’t - he said he was pulled and when the copper saw he was only cat C he said it’s not allowed on the basis he “could have been on the way to pick a trailer up, or have just dropped one”. i’m not really sure how much weight this holds, but i wouldn’t risk it personally[/quote
Jobsworth Plod comes to mind just let him get you in court any lawyer will make him look like what he is a pleb IMHO of course
smile! wrote:
one guy told me you can’t - he said he was pulled and when the copper saw he was only cat C he said it’s not allowed on the basis he “could have been on the way to pick a trailer up, or have just dropped one”. i’m not really sure how much weight this holds, but i wouldn’t risk it personally
Could HAve Been… That is another way of saying IF…
Could have been using it for shopping
Could have been on his way to do a ram rain
Could have been stolen
Could have been intending to scrap it
Could have been…
Remarks like this really get my back up. You can only get into trouble for what you are actually doing - not what you MIGHT be intending to do.
I seem to remember someone on here had a reply from DVLA about this. Yes you can drive without a trailer and you do not have to remove the fifth wheel. It makes sense - you can drive a rigid that has the ability to tow a trailer as wagon and drag, but without the trailer it is still a class C.
dessy:
Jobsworth Plod comes to mind just let him get you in court any lawyer will make him look like what he is a pleb IMHO of course
Dessy, you wouldn’t even get to court with it…the offence report has to get past the boffins in the process bureau first and to be fair to them, these guys really do know their onions on traffic law. They’d just drop the case before it got to CPS and send a note to the copper not be such a knobber in the future!
I asked an FTA chap the same question a few years ago, when put in that
position.
His reply was ‘Yes,you can drive the unit, but the fifth wheel must be
covered or locked off in some way, so as to make it impossable to couple
A trailer’
mighty moth:
I asked an FTA chap the same question a few years ago, when put in that
position.
His reply was ‘Yes,you can drive the unit, but the fifth wheel must be
covered or locked off in some way, so as to make it impossable to couple
A trailer’
I understood that to be the ruling too, however with the new licence category and testing allowing a rigid with a trailer to qualify you to drive an artic this information is now incorrect.
LGV against HGV.
C+E against Class One and C against Class Two etc.
I never understood the safety logic of downplating and downrating when the solution was to use less bolts or weaker ones in a propshaft or fifth wheel bed
