They see me turfin'

The Audi will have known and predictable characteristics at anything up to its gross weight, as it has been designed, built and tested for it. Above that, it starts to get unpredictable, especially the amount the OP had.

For example, the suspension system operates on the principle of compression, but look how much travel is left in the rear suspension with that load. The rear shocks won't be doing their job properly for a start.

Slowing down of course reduces the risk of anything going wrong due to the load. However you can remove the risks associated caused by overloading altogether by not doing it. All the tests and results that Audi submitted to VOSA to allow the car on UK roads in the first place, didn't include and extra 0.5 ton to heave around, therefore it has no legal right to have that weight in it.

I mean, do really people think they really know better than Audi? They built the car for crying out loud.. it's pub engineering by motorists.. "Yeah is that Audi in Germany? Well the thing is mate, I think you're wrong about the max gross weight, I know you designed and built the car, but me and my mates down the pub know better.. I had a ton in the back the other week."
 
dan^uk said:
The Audi will have known and predictable characteristics at anything up to its gross weight, as it has been designed, built and tested for it. Above that, it starts to get unpredictable, especially the amount the OP had.

For example, the suspension system operates on the principle of compression, but look how much travel is left in the rear suspension with that load. The rear shocks won't be doing their job properly for a start.

Slowing down of course reduces the risk of anything going wrong due to the load. However you can remove the risks associated caused by overloading altogether by not doing it. All the tests and results that Audi submitted to VOSA to allow the car on UK roads in the first place, didn't include and extra 0.5 ton to heave around, therefore it has no legal right to have that weight in it.

I mean, do really people think they really know better than Audi? They built the car for crying out loud.. it's pub engineering by motorists.. "Yeah is that Audi in Germany? Well the thing is mate, I think you're wrong about the max gross weight, I know you designed and built the car, but me and my mates down the pub know better.. I had a ton in the back the other week."
Click to expand...


You tell him sister.
 
christ on a bloody bike

he did it once, to carry some turf back home
wgaf, i mean really, who cares?

let it be dude
 
Muncher said:
Some real rubbish being spouted in this thread, "prosecuted for no insurance"!:confused:

If a policy is in force it remains in force until his insurer tells him the policy is cancelled. It will ALWAYS be in force under the road traffic act.
Click to expand...

You have not even read the link direct from the VOSA website.

I'm not even going to bother posting judgments passed by the courts on motorists with void insurance, you can do it yourself.

Take 5 minutes on Google.
 
Wicksta said:
His car wasn't safe? In what way? A tractor can't go round corners as quick as an M5 but you don't see tractor drivers going off the road at 90mph. I'm sure most capable drivers can assess how fast to go depending on the condition of their load, the road conditions etc.
Click to expand...

The car wasnt safe, its overloaded, those are the facts.

You'll be arguing black is white next.

I dont know why everyone is getting so excited about it, the guy is in the wrong, not a "a little bit" in the wrong, but "very much" in the wrong.
Yes highly amusing but idiotic and dangerous thing to do.
 
Ah well I'm not going to lose sleep over it, just as I don't lose sleep over people going over the speed limit, or talking on their phones, or driving defective cars. I have more important things to worry about.
 
atpbx said:
You have not even read the link direct from the VOSA website.

I'm not even going to bother posting judgments passed by the courts on motorists with void insurance, you can do it yourself.

Take 5 minutes on Google.
Click to expand...

"Means insurance cover is void. Overloading a vehicle is illegal and therefore
insurance cover can be void if the vehicle is involved in a crash;"

The above does not say it's void as a matter of course, it only states it may be if a claim is made.

Cover against own vehicle damage may be void but even if the insurer declines the claim the policy remains in force until the certificate or cover note is requested back by the insurer.

What case law did you post up before? I did not see it.
 
Muncher said:
"Means insurance cover is void. Overloading a vehicle is illegal and therefore
insurance cover can be void if the vehicle is involved in a crash;"

The above does not say it's void as a matter of course, it only states it may be if a claim is made.

Cover against own vehicle damage may be void but even if the insurer declines the claim the policy remains in force until the certificate or cover note is requested back by the insurer.

What case law did you post up before? I did not see it.
Click to expand...

(c) The owner of the vehicle did take out insurance but the insurers have canceled the policy on the grounds that the owner lied on his proposal form (so the insurance policy is void for non-disclosure). If the insurance is ‘void’ it means it’s as if the policy had never been taken out in the first place - ie there is no policy!

That also applies to all other aspect of void insurance.

12 seconds on google.
Search for magistrates rulings on void insurance and every single one you find is hit with 9 points and a hefty fine.

The same applies if you de- restrict a moped or 125 that takes its performance over the maximum power you are licensed to ride or fit any performance enhancing items to you car and do not declare them.

Its easy to understand as legally passing on the left or using a roundabout.
 
Last edited:
I loaded a Xantia estate last year with over a pallets worth of yellow pages. I think it was just over 800 books worth.

The whole cargo area, and the rear seats were filled to the roof, and the passenger seat and footwell.

It looked even more heaviliy loaded than that audi (as they do), until I started the engine. Then it levelled it self and looked absolutely normal. :) Yes it was probably massivley overloaded, but I took it easy <30mph going about 5 miles to where I was going.
 
atpbx said:
(c) The owner of the vehicle did take out insurance but the insurers have canceled the policy on the grounds that the owner lied on his proposal form (so the insurance policy is void for non-disclosure). If the insurance is ‘void’ it means it’s as if the policy had never been taken out in the first place - ie there is no policy!

That also applies to all other aspect of void insurance.

12 seconds on google.
Search for magistrates rulings on void insurance and every single one you find is hit with 9 points and a hefty fine.

The same applies if you de- restrict a moped or 125 that takes its performance over the maximum power you are licensed to ride or fit any performance enhancing items to you car and do not declare them.

Its easy to understand as legally passing on the left or using a roundabout.
Click to expand...

I draw your attention to s148 of the Road Traffic Act:

148. Avoidance of certain exceptions to policies or securities.— (1) Where a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict—
(a)the insurance of the persons insured by the policy, or
(b)the operation of the security,
(as the case may be) by reference to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, be of no effect.
(2) Those matters are—
(a)the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,
(b)the condition of the vehicle,
(c)the number of persons that the vehicle carries,
(d)the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,
(e)the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,
(f)the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,
(g)the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or
(h)the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under


The case for the defence rests your honour.
 
atpbx said:
Its easy to understand as legally passing on the left or using a roundabout.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you understand it? Insurers have legal obligations under the Road Traffic Act and these apply regardless of any potential civil dispute between the insurer and the insured party.

Muncher is correct.
 
Freefaller said:
Ah well I'm not going to lose sleep over it, just as I don't lose sleep over people going over the speed limit, or talking on their phones, or driving defective cars. I have more important things to worry about.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you did expect this - if theres one thing for certain, if you post something on here, theres always at least one **** who will pick holes in your OP, for whatever grounds they can find.

Boredom?, sexual frustration?, lack of an interesting life?, marital problems?, lack of confidence in real life? I'd love to know why.

Because we all know that in real life, if some bloke told people in the office this story, he surely wouldn't get a kicking like this, moreso out of politeness and a bit of damned common courtesy than anything else.
 
For once it isnt me!

It's been amusing to watch this one from the sidelines though. Particularly amusing is those who have wasted many many posts explaining how they dont care. They dont care so much they've posted 5+ times in the thread :p
 
Strangely enough there's a certain amount of common sense about it.

You take a policy out, it stands and is valid until the insurer notifies you that it isn't, end of story.

Insurers will always try to avoid paying out, if every time they refused to pay out the police would have to investigate and prosecute for no insurance it would be a farce. Instead what happens from there on in is generally a civil matter between you, the insurer and the third party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom