tommer9

And this is what it boils down to- damage limitation, both on the road (prevention/ avoidance of accidents AND how to react to getting stopped/ not being stopped in the first instance) and also in the unfortunate and less than desirable instance of 'after the event'. So how is that pertinent to the OP's question? well it think that the above posts serve to display why the AA are not hypocritical in approving Arbs who do overload. The point is that we are all in a balancing act: trying to stay within the law FOR THE RIGHT REASONS (and let us not forget that these laws are for the greater good, NOT for the government to exercise some sort of perceived right of determination of our lives) and trying to earn our living as best we can.

I Do basically agree with your statement Paul. However i also feel that the reasons that are put forward by those that enforce the H&S line are somewhat lost in a mist of a mixture of 'nanny state', legal costs and job creation/ maintainance. What i mean by 'nanny state' is the desire of the powers-that-be to obviate all danger to anyone. They seem hell bent on achieving this state of nirvana, which as long as there is human error/ judgement/ involvement and vehicles travelling at speed, there is gross inherent danger, and is unrealistic to suppose otherwise- this cannot be legislated away. The relevance of the 'legal costs' bit is partly the driving cause of this- as we have entered more and more into the awful american style 'culture of blame', where everyone seems to need to find someone to blame and seek recourse to compensation, the HSE are getting stronger. I.e. the culture of blame has allowed, nay forced us to create (consiously or otherwise) the breeding ground for the ever increasing power of the HSE, and the increasingly 'black and white' attitude, with little or no room for sway. For example, perhaps someone who is overloaded yet driving in a manner that may suit this- extra slowly and cautiously to simplify it- could be seen in a different light to someone overloaded yet not accounting for this in their driving style, hence rendering them a true danger to other people, yet at the moment there is no room for that judgement or even desire for that judgement to be made. Which brings me to the 'job creation/ maintainance' bit of my post. In order to justify the huge numbers of people who are employed in the HSE they have to get results. So they HAVE to be absolutely black and white. It would be very interesting to see whether or not, in real terms, the rate of accidents caused by overloading has increased or decreased compared to the huge increase in HSE involvement in our daily working life, particularly when applied to RTAs involving overloading, and also whether the incidence of overloading has fallen or remained the same too. On a personal note, I find it insulting, to say the least , the supposition that I am BOUND to cause an accident when loaded up to the gills, because (and I am sure that i speak for many others here too) I make big adjustments to my driving style when loaded, whether i think I am legal or over the weight (which i can only assume i am at certain times as i run a 110 defender), such as slower speeds, better preparation before starting to descend hills, cadence braking from the start of a descent etc, larger stopping distances than normwal etc etc.

I have had both and in my experience a hilux is a mickey mouse toy compared to a defender. My present landrover has done 176000 miles and drives as well as a new one, and is as reliable as anything jap and ten times stronger built. yes its only rated to tow 3.5 tonnes, but that is plenty enough. Agreed, the lardcruiser will tow ahouse but is full of seats though.

What would VOSA say...

Sorry to hear that mate.

Had a bad day Ben?

:lol:

You can walk into most pubs down here and ask for a pint of 'wife beater' and they will serve you stella with a wry grin:blushing:

Thats one big croc!!!!

the police recently busted a major fence in the midlands, who had a load of the national trust stuff that was stolen from down here months back.

Bad news. Thats a hell of a haul. Very sorry to hear that.

Nice one mate.

:lol:

He's a mum now...didnt you know!!??

Haha just checked out that mumsnet link...thats hilarious!! I wonder what wil happen when they catch up on this thread and see us talking about them talking about us....maybe they could start their own lunge thread....

:thumbup:

Awesome!!!

Thats very nasty looking dean. How on earth did he manage to get his face bitten whilst stroking a dog?????

Joy (logbaron) made the best suggestion!

Liam not winching it mate?

Rear helper springs, terra firma shocks and reinforced steering arms. And a tipping body. The snorkel helps in dusty conditions too.

Scumbags. Sorry to hear it Ace.

I hate the way it doesnt start properly, it doesnt have the feeling of raw "gimme more" that my 361 had, and just doesnt feel as nice to use. My feelings were confirmed the other day when i was passed a 361 with a 20" up the tree (i run a 16 or an 18 on the 362) and it made my 362 feel like something from B&Q:thumbdown: Maybe i have a dud one. I thought at first it would im-prove, but it has had gallons of fuel through it now, and i have played with the carb and even payed to have the carb adjusted, all to no avail.

The 361 is possibly the best saw i have ever used. The 362 might be the worst however.

I dont know alot about photography, but if you can do that to my pic taken on a nokia n95 8gb (the best camera on a phone there is I think?) then yes i imagine your results would be incredible with a reallly good camera.