Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Treewolf

Member
  • Posts

    699
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location:
    Dorset

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Treewolf's Achievements

  1. The regs changed years ago and are as in the IWT note. All that matters now is the actual weight you're towing, not the plated MAM.
  2. Any trailer over 3500kg gross needs coupled brakes and cannot be towed on a ball hitch, it must be on a suitable pin/ring or pintle/lunette coupling. Many LR vehicles from Series Ones onwards have been rated to tow 4 ton trailers subject to being fitted with coupled brakes. Now it will also cause a world of pain with tachos, drivers' hours, licencing, and all that malarkey. It's not really worth the aggro. I've driven a 2286cc SII with coupled brakes and 4 tons on the pintle and it is extremely tedious and generally a horrible experience. Never again!
  3. Be thankful it's a Transit not a Land-Rover! "We are unable to renew your insurance" is becoming fairly common, and for some models I've heard of premiums increasing from a few hundred to £16,000 per annum. The latter tends to be for the pointless "school delivery system" models like the RR, Velar, etc, but to the insurance computers unfortunately the proper Land-Rovers are all the same. The future does not look very promising!
  4. All that means is that the aspect ratio of the tyre is 100%, i.e., it is as tall as it is wide (in effect it is a 205/100R16).
  5. You can question the judgement but the technique is good. Don't try this unless you know the road, know what you're doing, and have a suitably prepared vehicle.
  6. Ah, thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding. I wasn't intentionally suggesting for a minute that the the starter of the thread wasn't fit to run a business, and I am sorry if that is what you thought I was saying. In fact I applaud the starter of the thread, someone who has identified a problem, isn't sure how to deal with it, and has asked for advice and suggestions. Absolutely sensible and responsible behaviour in my opinion. I would question the judgement of any person who turned a blind eye in such a situation (although we'd never know because they'd be unlikely to ask for advice) I also understand that it is difficult to find staff, and difficult to screen potential staff for alcohol/drug dependence, but that difficulty doesn't mitigate our responsibility to ensure that we are safe. I suspect that we are actually all on the same page. @Tree Brother, I hope that you didn't feel offended by anything in my post, because that was categorically not my intention.
  7. Not relevant in the slightest. My point, which I thought was clear, is this: if you are employing someone to do a job of work which includes an element of danger to them, your other employees, or the public, you have a very clear legal duty to minimise those risks and that includes making sure that your employees are fit to carry out their work safely. That means properly trained, properly equipped, adequately rested, and not unfit through drink or drugs of any kind, legal or otherwise. You may think this is tough, but to most people (at least those who aren't drug users) it's pretty reasonable. How do you think a non-user employee would feel working with a user if you failed to look after his safety? How would you feel when Johnny Junkie causes life-changing injury or death to another employee knowing you had the chance to prevent it but failed? How would you feel if your recreational drug using employee, or the one who arrived at work drunk from the night before, or who hadn't slept the night before, kills someone's wife and kids by driving your signwritten van into them? Like it or not being a good employer carries responsibilities to employees, public, and society at large, and it isn't always easy or pleasant. I actually find it a little disturbing that any employer in this industry at a professional level would not have a documented drugs and alcohol policy. Make it clear to all staff up front what standard you demand and what will happen if they let you down, eg first warning, second warning, goodbye. Firm, safe, fair.
  8. Imagine what would happen if your subbie or employee whom you suspect to be a user is the cause of a fatal in or life-changing incident and it can subsequently be proven that you knew or suspected he was a user and did nothing. I'm pretty sure that your life would take a significant turn for the worse. Is it worth the risk? If the only way you can stay in business is by employing users then you really shouldn't be in business unless you find a way to manage the risk.
  9. Insurance for all recent Land-Rover vehicles has rocketed this year due to the theft problem. They're desirable and very easy to steal. I seem to recall seeing stats which show that more than 40% of stolen vehicles in the greater London area are recent Range-Rovers. Coupled with the general increases due to keyless entry and the fact that EVs are usually written off after minor prangs, many LRs have become virtually uninsurable.
  10. There'll undoubtedly be a reason, but it won't be a good one. There is no justification for this. I also think that the public backlash will make life very difficult for the perpetrators to the extent that they'll probably come to regret it. Joe Public will probably end end paying for their protection. I wonder if the movie is planned yet.
  11. Don't believe all you read on the Internet, for a much more honest discussion read the whole thread on here. See ' 200 year old cedar in Dorset' in the general chat forum https://arbtalk.co.uk/forums/topic/64358-200year-old-cedar-in-dorset/#comments
  12. Worth remembering that the Nat Trust, which is quite rightly up in arms, is the organisation that felled the Wellington Cedar at Kingston Lacy only a few years ago. Hypocrisy or a new enlightenment?
  13. Sorry, I didn't word that well, did I. The one I linked to will do what you want. I wouldn't bother with the one in your original post. I also managed to pick at random the one website which does not state a price, but googling DA6823 shows the price to be around £650 wherever you buy. Quality is never cheap.
  14. I use one of these: DA6823 - ARB Portable Twin Compressor Kit WWW.JOHNCRADDOCKLTD.CO.UK DA6823, arb portable twin compressor kit for Series 1, Series 2, Series 3, 101 Forward Control... Yes, it will do what you ask, but it is not really in the same price bracket.
  15. Sign writing is dangerous, do not attempt to do it yourself!

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.