Hello Lutz & Stephen,
We seem to be debating for the sake of debating here. It is very unlikely that we will be able to change the law to bring some clarity to the situation.
I suspect Stephen from the contextual references in your correspondence that you have or are connectd with prosecutions in this field, and as such I give credence to your words.
Sadly the one of the consequences of this discussion is that whilst caravanners and other towers may wish to comply with the law on loading, the goal posts area a moveable target, and dependant on an individuals opinion, rather than a practical and easiliy measurable criteria (i.e. weights force and speed).
The suggestion that the authorities may rely of a conviction for "using a vehicle in a dangerous condition" rather than being over weight, is fraught with difficulties. What criteria would need to be fulfiled to define dangerous?
An outfit that is difficult to control (i.e unstable) at say 50Mph, my be quite easy at 45 is it dangerous?. In this instance the driver may elect not to exceed 45Mph on any road, Is it still dangerous?
What happens when the point of instability occurs at 65Mph (just over the speed limit for a car & caravasn in the UK), Is it dangerous? but the car has the power to pull caravn to 70mph..... and so on....
The definition of Dangerous and how it is applied leaves many potential loopholes. It seems it is fundamentally down to the individual opinion of the detecting officer.
It must also call into question the safety of any conviction overlaoding of caravans. I seem to recall that there have been some cases reported in caravan magazines for exceeding limits even the the notional 85% ratio. I have not seen the relavant article, but my suspicion is that the journalist did not report all the facts.
This is likely to be my last post on this thread, as I cannot see that we can make a differnce by procrastinating any further.
Best regards