Payload, who cares?

[derek pringle]

Hi All,

I think the point we should all remember here is that it DOES NOT MATTER what we think about the present situation re payloads and carrying overweight etc. We all seem savvy enough to know it is what the LAW SAYS that will determine in the end if what or any action is taken against anybody pulled in for a spot check or whatever. I doubt ' pleading ignorance ' will help as it does not in any other situation. If we think that the present rules and laws are wrong or too strict then we have an avenue to lobby for a change in the laws, maybe we should use that. The people who blatantly disregard 'payload' because they feel they know best I am sure will not feel the same should they be involved in an accident where it was PROVED the overweight was responsible. The best thing may be for the authorities to set up awareness programmes to educate us about the stark realities of payload consequences. This could take the form of pulling people over and checking them on an advisory basis for a period of time. I for one would not like to be stopped and told I had to unload a lot of stuff before I could travel on.

Heightening awareness of all m/h users may also help in the design as recently as we all know a maker called back new vans and replated them at their cost as the payload was pitiful,so much that when 2 people on board left almost no room for ANY gear. Sellers should in my opinion get to know the customers requirements more and guide them to the van that will suit their eeds including what typical things the particular customer wishes to take away with them. I fish whilst on holiday so that is a reasonable weight difference on board to somebody who doesn't for example.

cheers

derek

 

[Guest pelmetman]

crinklystarfish - 2012-11-18 9:13 AM

As a matter of interest, do you think you would pass a current test to drive a vehicle over 3500kg?

 

I don't see why not ;-).....................as I may not be vain enough to state that I'm a good driver :->.................but in comparison to many on here I am a experienced driver ;-)................My first motorhoming foray was driving a Highwayman around Morocco in the late 70's..............I also completed my first trip back from Gibraltar in my early 20's...........after leaving the Navy I spent several years driving a bus around Pompey and beyond............... indeed I pride myself that I was once able to have a controlled accident in a double decker bus loaded with passengers and was able to avoid serious injury to anyone 8-)..............although the driver of the Italian campervan that pulled out in front of me did sustain whiplash injuries :-(

 

Even now I have a fortnightly delivery run of 3 to 4 hundred miles in a day from the tractor country of Lincolnshire, through Cambridgeshire/ Herts/Essex/Suffolk and Norfolk.................and when I'm not doing that I'm wandering around Europe in Horace........been down to Spain twice this year already and will heading there again in 6 weeks B-)

 

So compared to your average motorhome user I guess based on experience alone I would think I'd qualify :D...................whether I'd pass a test or not is a different matter 8-).................but as we often see in society today *-).............It's not the person who can do the job gets the job....... but the person who can tick the right boxes that implies he can do the job that gets the job >:-)

 

 

[rupert123]

Crinklystarfish said 'could you qualify what you mean please'

 

No problem, go back and read my original post. If you did you will note i am one of the few who actually weigh their van on a reguler basis, i have never, ever, driven my van overweight. My original post does not advocate doing this, just making the point that most do not have a clue about their vans weight. I also wondered if it mattered much and after this am completely sure it does not. Is your van unsafe if it is 100kg overweight, of course not, as many have pointed out uprating is usually a paper excercise. As for people like Mel and Euroserve saying they will 'shop you' if you are a kg overweight, charming glad these two are not friends or neighbours.

[Tracker]

So that makes at least three holier than thoughs eh Henry!

 

What happened to tolerance of other's opinions and being able to accept that differing points of view are all valid on this forum?

 

I too don't agree with those who deliberately flout the law - even the somewhat pointless at times weight rules - but in a free country that is their choice and I at least am able to say so without insult..

[Guest JudgeMental]

crinklystarfish - 2012-11-18 8:47 AM

Tracker - 2012-11-16 2:38 PM I suppose it really was expecting too much, given the emotive topic, for this not to quickly degenerate into a mud slinging contest once the 'holier than though' brigade got wind of something to really have a go at. What happened to reasoned discussion - again?

It just struck me as particularly hypocritical that someone who had been banned for using foul, abusive, and deeply personalised insults, and who continues to this day be one of the central characters in many unpleasant exchanges, should himself adopt a "holier than thou" stance and call for reasoned discussion. It's the last thing he's actually interested in.

As for the claim that he does not instigate spats, well, any casual observation will show his usual modus operandi. He was banned because of it, he's continued it for years, he continues to do it. He stirs trouble (often quite subtly) is taken to task, and then claims the status of innocent victim forced to defend himself. 

It's tiresome.

It will be noted he never did answer my direct question what / who he meant by the "holier than thou brigade" an example of the kind of provocative / stirring comment he drops into threads.

Of course, he will now protest it was done in all innocence, just like every other time it's happened...

As I wrote, it's tiresome.

AaaaaaaMEN! :-D

[Tracker]

JudgeMental - 2012-11-18 11:26 AM

 

 

AaaaaaaMEN! :-D

 

I have no axe to grind with you on this Eddie but as one who is also prone to both digging in the past and initiating unprovoked nastiness you too, like your mate, are not only an expert but also a fully blown hypocrite?

 

Why don't we just leave it there?

[Derek Uzzell]

If a motorhome with a maximum overall weight of 3500kg is loaded so that it weighs (say) 4000kg, it will be 500kg overweight and illegal to drive.

 

If the same vehicle is loaded so that it weighs (say) 3450kg and a loaded unbraked trailer weighing (overall) 550kg is attached to that vehicle, the combined weight will also be 4000kg, but the motorhome/trailer combination will be legal to drive.

 

Which is legal, the former or the latter? Which is ‘safer’?

 

If any forum members believe that “legality” and “safety” are synonyms, an English dictionary should go on their Xmas-present list.

[armstrongpiper]

I've been following this thread with some amusement, and some amazement. Amazed that some folk treat the LAW with such gay abandon. Vehicle weights ARE important, having passed through careful design criteria to determine safe operating parameters. The LAW takes note of this, and so does the Insurance Industry. Ignoring the facts is just a bit 'head in sand'.

 

Manufacturers have a +/- 5% tollerance on their claimed delivered vehicle weights, and in my experience they always fully utilise this. Is this +/- 5% allowed by the authorities who carry out vehicle check weighing beside the road?

 

Neil B

[Derek Uzzell]

Information (2009) about VOSA Excess Weight Offences is provided here (Section 3.6)

 

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/Transport_files/8001_VOSA_fixed_penalties_and_financial_deposits_0.pdf

 

The VOSA 5% tolerance has no connection to the +/- 5% 'build weight' latitude often quoted in motorhome brochures.

[Retread24800]

pelmetman - 2012-11-17 7:45 PM

crinklystarfish - 2012-11-17 6:38 PM

pelmetman - 2012-11-17 1:02 PM...So what happens if you've re plaited your vehicle lower, and the only physical change is a piece of paper and a new weight plate? :-S.....................Because if the vehicle was safe before how does a piece of paper make it unsafe? 8-)

I don't understand your point. If you are saying your vehicle was plated at say 4000kg but you went through a paper exercise only to downplate it to 3500kg, and then loaded it to 4000kg anyway, of course it makes no difference as far as the vehicle is concerned, but it does mean you are now breaking the law and the issue of whether you are able to handle such vehicle weight in an emergency is still relevant.

It seems like a hypothetical red-herring - if that's what you are trying to convey.

How is it a red herring? :-S............If a vehicle was deemed safe before a paper exercise to downgrade for either age or tax reasons...... its still a safe vehicle even if its now technically overloaded *-).......I was querying how the authorities would deal with it?..........as they clearly can't do you for driving a unsafe overloaded vehicle ;-)

 

The vehicle may be under its designed GVW due to this hypothetical replating exercise but the driver would still be guilty of driving a vehicle over the plated weight, safety is irrelevant.

 

As a matter of discussion I would be more worried about a driver who would rather accept a lower, inconvenient Payload rather than obtain a pukka driving license perhaps the driver is less than fit for use?

 

[colin]

Derek Uzzell - 2012-11-18 11:34 AM

 

If a motorhome with a maximum overall weight of 3500kg is loaded so that it weighs (say) 4000kg, it will be 500kg overweight and illegal to drive.

 

If the same vehicle is loaded so that it weighs (say) 3450kg and a loaded unbraked trailer weighing (overall) 550kg is attached to that vehicle, the combined weight will also be 4000kg, but the motorhome/trailer combination will be legal to drive.

 

Which is legal, the former or the latter? Which is ‘safer’?

 

If any forum members believe that “legality” and “safety” are synonyms, an English dictionary should go on their Xmas-present list.

 

It's much worse than that Derek. My van is downplated by the manufacturer to 3500kg, if I wished it's an easy job to get it replated to 4005kg, but if I was to load it at that at the moment I would get fined, BUT, I can tow a 3000kg trailer giving a gross train weight of 6500kg.

[colin]

Retread24800 - 2012-11-18 12:20 PM

 

As a matter of discussion I would be more worried about a driver who would rather accept a lower, inconvenient Payload rather than obtain a pukka driving license perhaps the driver is less than fit for use?

 

If the driver is happy with the payload why not? I'm happy with my payload and won't be replated my van.

Also some drivers such as Eddie are restricted by law to 3500kg, would he be any less safe at 4000kg than 3500kg probably not but it's an arbitrary figure used by the government.

[colin]

BTW Henry, I noticed you've had little input into this thread, no good sitting back smiling thinking "I've stirred up the hornets nest with this thread" your still either a geek as your friends infer or maybe a troll. :D

[Retread24800]

colin - 2012-11-18 1:47 PM

Retread24800 - 2012-11-18 12:20 PMAs a matter of discussion I would be more worried about a driver who would rather accept a lower, inconvenient Payload rather than obtain a pukka driving license perhaps the driver is less than fit for use?

If the driver is happy with the payload why not? I'm happy with my payload and won't be replated my van.Also some drivers such as Eddie are restricted by law to 3500kg, would he be any less safe at 4000kg than 3500kg probably not but it's an arbitrary figure used by the government.

 

Would you by extension therefore be happy if a driver decided to drive an HGV while only holding a provisional because he felt that he was competent?

 

The license categories are there to protect us all and if you are unfit to drive or are unable to prove that you are fit enough to drive then so be it.

 

[colin]

Retread24800 - 2012-11-18 1:08 PM

colin - 2012-11-18 1:47 PM

Retread24800 - 2012-11-18 12:20 PMAs a matter of discussion I would be more worried about a driver who would rather accept a lower, inconvenient Payload rather than obtain a pukka driving license perhaps the driver is less than fit for use?

If the driver is happy with the payload why not? I'm happy with my payload and won't be replated my van.Also some drivers such as Eddie are restricted by law to 3500kg, would he be any less safe at 4000kg than 3500kg probably not but it's an arbitrary figure used by the government.

 

Would you by extension therefore be happy if a driver decided to drive an HGV while only holding a provisional because he felt that he was competent?

 

The license categories are there to protect us all and if you are unfit to drive or are unable to prove that you are fit enough to drive then so be it.

Many Millions(? ) of drivers are licensed to drive up to 7500kg, very few have had to demonstrate an ability to do so. Would I be happy to have a free for all on driving no, but that does not mean that anyone driving ,say, my van becomes more dangerous because it has had the plate changed to read 4005kg.But this is an argument that can go around in circles for ever.

[Guest pelmetman]

Retread24800 - 2012-11-18 12:20 PM

pelmetman - 2012-11-17 7:45 PM

crinklystarfish - 2012-11-17 6:38 PM

pelmetman - 2012-11-17 1:02 PM...So what happens if you've re plaited your vehicle lower, and the only physical change is a piece of paper and a new weight plate? :-S.....................Because if the vehicle was safe before how does a piece of paper make it unsafe? 8-)

I don't understand your point. If you are saying your vehicle was plated at say 4000kg but you went through a paper exercise only to downplate it to 3500kg, and then loaded it to 4000kg anyway, of course it makes no difference as far as the vehicle is concerned, but it does mean you are now breaking the law and the issue of whether you are able to handle such vehicle weight in an emergency is still relevant.

It seems like a hypothetical red-herring - if that's what you are trying to convey.

How is it a red herring? :-S............If a vehicle was deemed safe before a paper exercise to downgrade for either age or tax reasons...... its still a safe vehicle even if its now technically overloaded *-).......I was querying how the authorities would deal with it?..........as they clearly can't do you for driving a unsafe overloaded vehicle ;-)

 

The vehicle may be under its designed GVW due to this hypothetical replating exercise but the driver would still be guilty of driving a vehicle over the plated weight, safety is irrelevant.

 

As a matter of discussion I would be more worried about a driver who would rather accept a lower, inconvenient Payload rather than obtain a pukka driving license perhaps the driver is less than fit for use?

Given the choice I'd rather have someone behind me who was safe than legal ;-)..............as for the medical at 70 its little more than a government cash cow as it seems that unless you are at deaths door its more a formality.................my old man passed it every time and was able to drive his Hymer............but it became obvious when we accompanied him back from Spain that he was legal but..... dangerous 8-).......... he nearly took out a load of french people sat outside in a pavement restaurant, after which I refused to let him drive *-)................it took the family a further three years to get him to sell it :-SSo frankly as far as I'm concerned the medical's and down plaiting are a waste of time *-)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Interesting point about medicals, because I personally know people driving around with gay abandon, one with vertigo who even gets carers allowance because of their condition, another with some weird brain disorder that has to have a medication patch applied to their forehead and has to wear almost completely black lensed glasses, but drives a powerful 4x4, another who owns our local petrol station who's eyesight is so bad you would not believe, I've been going there for years, but do not get any recognition as to who I am until I'm feet away, but locks up at the end of the day and zips off home in his 300 Bhp Merc, go figure. But then of course factor in people high on drugs,or alcohol on the roads, so I say again a sense of proportion is needed compared to the very real risks we can encounter when venturing forth. we live in an imperfect world full of imperfective people.

[armstrongpiper]

Thankyou Derek for the link to the VOSA excess weight regs. Using the 5% tolerance I can stretch my payload a bit.

 

Thanks, Neil B

[rupert123]

colin - 2012-11-18 12:50 PM

 

BTW Henry, I noticed you've had little input into this thread, no good sitting back smiling thinking "I've stirred up the hornets nest with this thread" your still either a geek as your friends infer or maybe a troll. :D

 

Ahh! You spotted that Colin. However I posted after the pub conversation and because i look at forums thought everyone knew this stuff. Obviously wrong and most, as I said, neither know or care. Now wether others do care is of complete indifferance to me, that is up to them, I know what I do and will continue with that, check my vans weight on a regular basis. A farmer friend of mine has just bought a couple of those drive over weigh things so now very easy for me. What I personally do take exception to is two members of this forum clearly stating they will 'shop' anyone they suspect of being overweight, how pathetic is that. A good row is one thing, this is another. A few years ago in a village where I lived their was a person who went around or spent their time peering around their curtains and reporting any minor thing they saw that could remotely be classed as a 'crime'. Now if they were reporting robberies, rape, murder etc fine but if you put the dustbin out on the wrong day then it was reported, very popular they were.

[Airstream]

No mention of tyres in this debate?

 

As a lot of motorhomes are fitted with 15" wheels the max load on a 215 /70 r15 c is 1030 or 2060 kg per axle - load index 109

 

So on your 2000kg rated rear axle you are just ok on "camper" ie cp rated tyres that are designed to run at the rated load index (at very high pressures), but well short on "c" rated tyres ! as the tyre industry recommendation is to run at no more than 90% circa 1850kg

 

Yes you may be sort of "legal" at 5% over your max axle load but are you safe?

 

Ray

[rupert123]

Tracker - 2012-11-18 11:12 AM

 

So that makes at least three holier than thoughs eh Henry!

 

What happened to tolerance of other's opinions and being able to accept that differing points of view are all valid on this forum?

 

I too don't agree with those who deliberately flout the law - even the somewhat pointless at times weight rules - but in a free country that is their choice and I at least am able to say so without insult..

 

Sorry lost me Rich. What opinions are we talking about, if my reference to the police informers then this was not an opinion, they stated it was what they would do. What holier than thou thoughts, just stated what I do for those and their were a few, who failed to read my oiginal post. I do not much care what others do, although am willing to discuss the point. Perhaps i have misunderstood you, as someone said tome a few posts ago, please explain.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, comes to mind ! ! especially being Sunday

[rupert123]

1footinthegrave - 2012-11-17 7:56 PM

 

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I'm willing to guess the amount of folk who know their payload is in the minority as well, even if they do and how it really equates to the real day to day changing of their situation, how much fuel/ water/ gas/ shopping/ duty free/ bikes/ picnic chairs/ boxes or bottles of wine they are carrying, sat dish on the roof, extra leisure battery they installed/ the list goes on and on, that they are carrying,and the margins they are left with as it affects their payload I'll bet most would not have a clue ( me included ) but we do not carry half the gear we see some folks carry :-(

 

You are certainly not in a minority and this is spot on, my original point but better put. Having been told i have not contributed have now overdone it so will stop for a bit. Perhaps I better start another thread on panel vans and how to lose money with them.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

rupert123 - 2012-11-18 4:20 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2012-11-17 7:56 PM

 

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I'm willing to guess the amount of folk who know their payload is in the minority as well, even if they do and how it really equates to the real day to day changing of their situation, how much fuel/ water/ gas/ shopping/ duty free/ bikes/ picnic chairs/ boxes or bottles of wine they are carrying, sat dish on the roof, extra leisure battery they installed/ the list goes on and on, that they are carrying,and the margins they are left with as it affects their payload I'll bet most would not have a clue ( me included ) but we do not carry half the gear we see some folks carry :-(

 

You are certainly not in a minority and this is spot on, my original point but better put. Having been told i have not contributed have now overdone it so will stop for a bit. Perhaps I better start another thread on panel vans and how to lose money with them.

 

I know that's probably a bit tongue in cheek "how to lose money with a PVC, but we were this year offered more than we paid for our PVC four years ago, it's a shame it's not for you, I recently bought the "wrong car", and lost a bundle after just a few weeks, and we all know the moment you drive of with your new toy be it car, PVC, Coachbuilt, or anything else for that matter, you are going to take the first big hit if it's brand new.

[Tracker]

rupert123 - 2012-11-18 4:13 PM

 

Tracker - 2012-11-18 11:12 AM

 

So that makes at least three holier than thoughs eh Henry!

 

What happened to tolerance of other's opinions and being able to accept that differing points of view are all valid on this forum?

 

I too don't agree with those who deliberately flout the law - even the somewhat pointless at times weight rules - but in a free country that is their choice and I at least am able to say so without insult..

 

Sorry lost me Rich. What opinions are we talking about, if my reference to the police informers then this was not an opinion, they stated it was what they would do. What holier than thou thoughts, just stated what I do for those and their were a few, who failed to read my oiginal post. I do not much care what others do, although am willing to discuss the point. Perhaps i have misunderstood you, as someone said tome a few posts ago, please explain.

 

Sorry for the confusion Henry.

 

I am not for one moment referring to you as either a holier than though type who sits in judgement or of being one who does not show tolerance, without necessarily agreeing with the viewpoint of others.

 

Like you, I don't much care what others choose to do as their own actions are entirely their own choice!