4250kg imminent?

[Jofang]

I picked up the text below today from www.camping-car.org, which is dated 21st December 2024. The original text is in French.

The format of the three-part pink driving license was inconvenient and specific to France and some European countries. The new format called credit card is therefore closer to the format of the national identity card and other useful cards (health card, blue card, etc.). The new format is supplemented with various security features including watermark photography and page background. Its falsification therefore becomes much more difficult.

The new credit card format is also much less sensitive to handling accidents: rain, tearing, creasing, etc.

Finally, this format and its content are now officially recognized in all countries of the European Union and many EU partner countries (Norway for example).

But it is above all the fact of finally being able to officially drive vehicles with a GVW of 4250 kg with a B license that interests motorhome drivers. We are still far from the 7 to 8 tons authorized in most states in the United States and Canada. But it is a significant step towards the generalization of new vehicles with greater usability.

 

[Mike001]

here in NZ:
This makes prefect sense as to what things should be.
With my motorhome I still have over 1000kg spare. Carry blowup paddle boards, kayak, full water / diesel etc etc

Class 1 (car) - a class 1 licence holder can drive any rigid or combination vehicle (other than a motorcycle) up to 6,000 kg gross combined weight (GCW).

 

[Lenny HB]

sorting out the NHS, crumbling schools, the housing crisis, unemployment, immigration,

Well they ain't going to do that so might as well do something they are cabable of.

 

[Orion]

Well they ain't going to do that so might as well do something they are cabable of.

Grabbing some more Taylor Swift concert tickets?

 

[Rob Hammond]

Are you seriously suggesting that this government should prioritise sorting the idiosyncratic rules regarding weight limits, speed limits and excise licences concerning the minority pastime of motorhome ownership rather sorting out the NHS, crumbling schools, the housing crisis, unemployment, immigration, the threat that is Trump, the threat that is Putin etc, etc?

Parroting "I blame the government" gets nobody anywhere.

Whatever you say

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[swemmy666]

Well they ain't going to do that so might as well do something they are cabable of.

Yes, the tories left it almost unfixable

 

[PaulW2]

Who was the last PM who was actually capable of getting stuff done?

 

[Soots]

Nowt wrong with some parts of Coventry…….

If they speak to you!

 

[Barriesimpson]

Who was the last PM who was actually capable of getting stuff done?

Sir Winston Churchill.

 

[DDJC]

What I mean is that there's no logical reason to increase the weight limits, other than coz people wanna. But several reasons not to.

It is a very small change that affects very little. I can think of several logical business and commercial reasons why it is a good idea. I can't think of any reason not to.

Think about it. A change won't increase the length of your motorhome. Or the width. Or the height. Or the ground clearance. It won't improve visibility in the cyclist danger areas. It will slow the speed of many motorhomes. If physical change is required (semi air, wider tyres, better brakes and shocks, etc) then the vehicle is made safer.

I don't understand why you are so dogmatically opposed to it. It is a fantastic idea, and should be brought in immediately.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jongood]

Who was the last PM who was actually capable of getting stuff done?

Those of us who care are probably wondering where we go from here?

 

[cyberyacht]

I don't understand why you are so dogmatically opposed to it. It is a fantastic idea, and should be brought in immediately.

If considering the UK in isolation, then I would agree. I suspect that Guigsy is considering the downsides when across the channel, which I why I would not uprate mine if the legislation changed.

 

[DerryW]

Edit

 

[PaulW2]

Those of us who care are probably wondering where we go from here?

The problems seem to be systemic in very knotted, intractable ways.

Some people have written good books on this (e.g. Ian Dunt's 'How Westminster Works and Why It Doesn't; Sam Freedman's 'Failed State'.)

But diagnosing it doesn't mean anyone is actually going to do anything about it.

In the meantime, however, it probably doesn't help if we're too one-sidedly partisan - it ends up just being a form of wilful ignorance that comforts us but that helps to perpetuate the problem.

 

[DerryW]

If like me you’ve already gone through the exercise of increasing the GVW to the manufacturers maximum permissible (in my case 3850kg) the proposed changes won’t make any difference other than not having to have the 3 yearly medical (I believe that’s correct) but happy to be corrected on that point.

However. If you have a MH manufactured with a maximum GVW above 3500kg and have no restrictive medical conditions, why wouldn’t you welcome these proposed changes, if for nothing else, the extra few kgs of payload.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[DerryW]

The way this thread is going, give it another couple of days and you’ll have to view in the Belly Locker.

Now that will be an eye opener for some.

 

[Guigsy]

It is a very small change that affects very little. I can think of several logical business and commercial reasons why it is a good idea. I can't think of any reason not to.

Think about it. A change won't increase the length of your motorhome. Or the width. Or the height. Or the ground clearance. It won't improve visibility in the cyclist danger areas. It will slow the speed of many motorhomes. If physical change is required (semi air, wider tyres, better brakes and shocks, etc) then the vehicle is made safer.

I don't understand why you are so dogmatically opposed to it. It is a fantastic idea, and should be brought in immediately.

Higher limits will mean bigger vehicles. Heavier vehicles are worse in accidents. They are worse on fuel. They do more damage to the road surface (roughly twice as much per axle as it's a 4th power). There are plenty of reasons to not up the limits.

 

[DDJC]

Higher limits will mean bigger vehicles. Heavier vehicles are worse in accidents. They are worse on fuel. They do more damage to the road surface (roughly twice as much per axle as it's a 4th power). There are plenty of reasons to not up the limits.

Sorry, but you are totally overstating the case, and I can't see why. Are you a C1 trainer or examiner? If so, I would understand your opposition.

It does not mean bigger vehicles. It means slightly heavier vehicles. Who says they will be bigger? Mine won't be when I get it done after this brilliant rule change is brought in.

I really don't see what you mean by "Heavier vehicles are worse in accidents." Worse than what? It is a difference of a few hundred kilos, no practical difference at all. If it was an issue, then the weight change companies would insist on uprating brakes, rather than just semi air and wider tyres

If they are worse for fuel, so what? You are talking a couple of MPG at worst. Negligible. Offset that by going round a hill and not over it.

Damage to road surface? Really? Damage is caused by 30 tonne artics, not an extra couple of hundred kilos of motorhome. My increase would be 3500 to 3850, which is 10%. Which is sod all. The maximum increase would be 21%, which is still not much at all and would affect very very few motorhomes.

 

[PaulW2]

Sorry, but you are totally overstating the case, and I can't see why. Are you a C1 trainer or examiner? If so, I would understand your opposition.

It does not mean bigger vehicles. It means slightly heavier vehicles. Who says they will be bigger? Mine won't be when I get it done after this brilliant rule change is brought in.

I really don't see what you mean by "Heavier vehicles are worse in accidents." Worse than what? It is a difference of a few hundred kilos, no practical difference at all. If it was an issue, then the weight change companies would insist on uprating brakes, rather than just semi air and wider tyres

If they are worse for fuel, so what? You are talking a couple of MPG at worst. Negligible. Offset that by going round a hill and not over it.

Damage to road surface? Really? Damage is caused by 30 tonne artics, not an extra couple of hundred kilos of motorhome. My increase would be 3500 to 3850, which is 10%. Which is sod all. The maximum increase would be 21%, which is still not much at all and would affect very very few motorhomes.

The 4th power point is, as I understand it, correct. And that does yield probably twice the burden on the road.
But an artic, by the same arithmetic, may cause about 1,000 times the burden.*

Is twice the burden of a 3.5t van of any consequence? I suspect not. Certainly not when thousands of vehicles each causing 1,000 times the damage can use the road for years before work is needed.

Also, the vehicles in scope for the increase are only the tiniest fraction of the vehicles on the road - EV vans, motorhomes and ambulances. Maybe 1 vehicle in 100 or fewer? And as the EV van numbers increase it will be good for fossil fuel consumption.

* Probably more. The calculation is per axle and they have more axles.

 

[nicholsong]

Higher limits will mean bigger vehicles. Heavier vehicles are worse in accidents. They are worse on fuel. They do more damage to the road surface (roughly twice as much per axle as it's a 4th power). There are plenty of reasons to not up the limits.

For us, no change in vehicle, just an extra driver.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Guigsy]

For us, no change in vehicle, just an extra driver.

I'm sure many would choose the longer vehicle if they had the choice. There are threads on this forum every week about people wanting bigger motorhomes, but finding it's not possible within 3.5t. The market would move with demand and soon everything would be 4250kg.

 

[Sasbo]

I'm sure many would choose the longer vehicle if they had the choice. There are threads on this forum every week about people wanting bigger motorhomes, but finding it's not possible within 3.5t. The market would move with demand and soon everything would be 4250kg.

...and being a cynic, give motorhome manufacturers the opportunity to increase prices, as no doubt it will be claimed it costs more to manufacture a compliant 4250kg unit

 

[Barriesimpson]

I'm pretty sure I don't want a bigger van. Ours is 7.42M and long enough, however, 300kg more payload would be perfect.

 

[Guigsy]

...and being a cynic, give motorhome manufacturers the opportunity to increase prices, as no doubt it will be claimed it costs more to manufacture a compliant 4250kg unit

When in reality, they can use less of the spendy light weight materials. So it actually costs them less.

 

[Guigsy]

I'm pretty sure I don't want a bigger van. Ours is 7.42M and long enough, however, 300kg more would be perfect.

Many people struggle to get within 3500kg with such a large van. So they go smaller.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Barriesimpson]

Many people struggle to get within 3500kg with such a large van. So they go smaller.

Yes they do, and that is exactly what I don't want to do.

 

[DerryW]

I'm pretty sure I don't want a bigger van. Ours is 7.42M and long enough, however, 300kg more payload would be perfect.

I’m with you Barrie on that one.

 

[Lynne Roy]

Higher limits will mean bigger vehicles. Heavier vehicles are worse in accidents. They are worse on fuel. They do more damage to the road surface (roughly twice as much per axle as it's a 4th power). There are plenty of reasons to not up the limits.

Upping the limit to 4250 kg will not make a difference to accident rates or road surface damage

 

[nicholsong]

I'm sure many would choose the longer vehicle if they had the choice. There are threads on this forum every week about people wanting bigger motorhomes, but finding it's not possible within 3.5t. The market would move with demand and soon everything would be 4250kg.

Why try to make that point when quoting my post where I said there would be no change in the vehicle.

You looking for an argument?

 

[Oldrat]

Why try to make that point when quoting my post where I said there would be no change in the vehicle.

You looking for an argument?

A £10 argument or a £20 argument?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[gus-lopez]

. Vehicle over 3050kgs speed limit is 50mph.

No,not correct.It is any commercial vehicle limit is 50 on a single carriageway road.
If he had owned the vehicle he could have used the " the vehicle is used as a motorhome regardless of what is on the V5 & complies with the dvla requirements & as such is not subject to the commercial vehicle speed limits"= get out.

Higher limits will mean bigger vehicles. Heavier vehicles are worse in accidents. They are worse on fuel. They do more damage to the road surface (roughly twice as much per axle as it's a 4th power). There are plenty of reasons to not up the limits.

Then that rules out 4250kgs for electric vans.., as it should .there should be no enducements for the muppets. It should also rule out ev cars as they are far heavier also.