Treewolf

My Echo has done me proud for years.

The first BFG Mud T/As I put on my Disco (TD5 Disco 2) were 245/75x16 which is generally reckoned to be the largest that will fit a standard Disco 2. When they needed renewing after 100k miles I couldn't get 245s so fitted 265/75x16 instead, whcih everyone at the time told me wouldn't fit. They do fit perfectly and have never touched the body or arches (at it's done some fairly severe off-road work) but I did have to trim about an inch off the panel at the bottom of the front bumper (the bit that connects the leading edge of the wheelarch liner to the bumper) and I did already have fitted a Gulf-Spec front bumper, the one which doesn't have the air dam at the bottom (and therefore doesn't double as a bulldozer/snowplough). I think that 285/75x16 would fit under a 3" lift but you may want 30mm spacers between the wheel and the hub. If it was my choice, I would stick with 265s.

I run:- - 265/75x16 BFG Mud TA KM1 on a Disco 2 - a very good dual purpose tyre (and the last set lasted 100,000 miles), performs quite well on snowy tarmac. - 285/75x16 Kumho KL71 on a Defender DCPU - not had it long enough to assess them thoroughly but initial opinion is that they are a match for the BFGs as far as traction and handling (too soon to tell re. mileage and it hasn't snowed since I fitted them). The tyres are cheaper than BFGs though. - 750x16 Michelin XCL on a (modified) Series 1 86" Land-Rover. Of the three these are without doubt the best in snow since they cut straight through to the hard surface (tarmac or permafrost) below. It is almost impossible to get any flotation on snow in this country, so a narrow tyre that cuts through to the road surface is usually the best bet.

Watched this when it was on BBC1 earlier this week. Graphic, gripping and disturbing. No drugs involved, apparently, though first impressions suggested PCP or similar, just completely phsychotic. My sympathies are with the family of the murdered guy and also those people who had to deal with the motorway incident (including the drivers - the lorry driver looked devastated - and the police) and the stabbing. It disturbs me that someone who is clearly very bonkers indeed and a real danger to herself and the public can be let out from custody. It's all very well saying that she wasn't bonkers at the time of release, but normal people do not run into to motorway traffic and until someone figured out why she did she should have been detained. It also clearly highlighted an inadequacy with the law, when someone is legally insane at the time an offence is committed but has recovered when sentencing is carried out. All in all a very sad business.

A 1968 Landrover is required by law to have seatbelts fitted in the two outermost front seat positions and the driver and passengers must wear them. In 1967 it became law in the UK for the front outermost seats to be fitted with three-point belts (although wearing them was voluntary then) and in 1968 UK law required that vehicles manufactured in or after 1965 (actually it was the 1965 model year, so some 1964 production was affected) were retrofitted with three-point belts in the front outermost seat positions, although their use was still optional. It was only much later that their use became a legal requirement. If your L-R was built in 1968 and sold for use in the UK then it was required by law to have belts from new, and not only was it illegally sold but every MOT is passed without them was in fact wrongly passed! If it was manufacured prior to the end of 1964 (perhaps for the MOD and not civilian registered till 1968) then it did not and still does not require them, but if they are fitted, they are testable items at the MOT, and they must be worn by the driver and passenger. I have a 1955 Land-Rover to which I retrofitted lap straps (I used to trial it and this was the minimum requirement to pass scrutineering) and as a result these are now MOT-able items and I am required by law to wear them on the road. Also be aware that it is now illegal to carry young children (or small children under a certain height) in any vehicle which does not have seatbelts, since the law for such children says that belts must be worn, rather than must be worn if available. So if you have a vintage or classic vehicle, tough luck on the sprogs. This of course also applies to private land to which the public has access (such as rally fields), since the Road Traffic Acts are now held to apply there as well. I think that the age is 12, but I am not sure as I don't have kids!

Beautiful job and really imaginative! I reckon that's the nicest gate of its type I have seen in a long time. Thanks for posting.

"Parbuckling". At least that's what the Navy calls it.

Glad to be of service! Many times I have learned really useful stuff from this forum, and I am glad that for once I can give something back!

Not so, I am afraid. The 10% +3 threshold was one that ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) decided was sensible simply to prevent police forces (sorry - they're "services" now not forces) from being overwhelmed with paperwork and prosecutions. If you book *everybody* who is even slightly over the limit the whole system will grind to a halt due to the sheer volume of speeding tickets. However it is not the law and it is not mandatory. Now it is fashionable to assume (a) that all motorists are evil and should be punished, and (b) motorists who exceed the speed limit are the most evil and should be treated like would-be murderers, many police "services" are choosing to ignore the ACPO guidelines and prosecute everyone. The issue of speedometers is equally misunderstood. By law a speedo may be inaccurate by (if I recall correctly) no more than 10% but it must not under-read at all, so if for example it is reading 50mph you could actually be doing anything from 45mph to 50mph but not more than 50mph. However it is not cost effective to manufacture a speedo to these specs (i.e, making one that is guaranteed not to under-read) and most good modern speedos are approximately plus/minus 5%. They are therefore designed to over-read by 5%, since they will therefore be legal with the +/-5% accuracy on top of this - they will never under-read. In this way if you have a +/-5% speedo designed to over-read by 5%, when it shows 50mph you ought to be doing 47.5mph +/- 2.5mph which keeps everything legal. Police traffic vehicles have calibrated speedos (expensive) which will probably be less than 1% variant from true. The bottom line is that if you are even 1mph over the limit you could be done for speeding.

There are several places I know of where there are two or more speed cameras quite close together. I have sometimes wondered whether if you were to drive past two cameras in close succession at (say) 80 in a 60 limit without at anytime reducing speed, have you committed one offence or two? I reckon one, since the offence is exceeding the speed limit (which you have only done once) and not passing the camera at an excessive speed. Purely hypothetical, but it would be interesting to know if anyone's tried this as a defence.

My understanding of the law in the case of a right of way (of any kind) blocked or obstructed by timber either standing or fallen is that you can clear it sufficient to pass but you must not remove any of the material since this belongs to the landowner. It is also an offence to "go prepared" to do this (which has always struck me as bonkers), so if you put the chainsaw in the truck thinking that the road may be blocked you are committing an offense, but if you happen to have a saw with you anyway and you decide to use it you are OK. I amy be wrong or the situation may have changed, but this is my understanding. Don't rely upon it in court, however, seek professional advice!

And another thing, I believe that speed cameras were largely responsible for the epidemic of cloned number plates, which in turn has now made it very difficult for law-abiding people to get plates made (but not seemingly villains). Average speed cameras seem to be very effective. The only people who speed through average speed camera zones are those, I reckon, with someone else's number plates on their vehicle. Nuff said, now I'll go back to sleep!

But they don't take the role of a Police officer - a police officer will (or should) collar people for a whole range of BAD driving, which may well be inappropropriate or excessive speed, but also includes tailgating, not wearing a seat belt, using mobile phones, defective vehicles, overloaded vehicle, excessive noise/smoke/music, illegal use of fog or other lights, bike racks etc that obscure the lights/number plates, defective trailers, driving like a pillock, etc etc etc. They are also effective at spotting the low-life who's just nicked your new Timberwolf and increase the chances of recovering it - a speed camera won't do that unless it is being stolen very fast. Speed cameras do one thing and one thing only, and don't even do that very well. Speed cameras a very poor substitue for proper traffic policing in just about every respect, but they are much cheaper than traffic officers. If every fixed speed camera was replaced with at least one traffic officer, then we might see a difference. However there is no chance of that because the country's economic wellbeing was destryed by the idiots in numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street and there's no money left.

I have always felt the problem with speed cameras is that they cannot discriminate between fast driving and bad driving, which are not the same thing. It is illegal to exceed the speed limit but not necessarily dangerous, and whilst those who are caught speeding deserve the consequences they are not necessarily the evil sociopathic killers that they are usually now made out to be. Some of the worst and most dangerous drivers on the road will never exceed the speed limit and will never be caught by speed cameras. The only really effective tool to protect us from these drivers is to have far more good, sensible, and balanced traffic policemen. Unfortunately traffic policemen cost more than speed cameras (and finding good, sensible, and balanced people is probably not easy either) and so we were given speed cameras. In my view, a motorist who zig-zags the barriers at a level crossing, or drives an overheight vehicle into a railway bridge (both of which happen several times a day) is far more dangerous that a speeding motorist. The bloke who caused the railway crash at Great Heck was not speeding, it was his appalling judgement that killed so many people. He was a bad driver. I wonder what proportion of accidents is caused by speeding as opposed to bad driving. Another (probably controversial and politically incorrect) thought: there's a big drive now to reduce speed limits to 20 in built up areas so that children hit by cars are more likely to survive; wouldn't it be better still to teach children not to walk in front of cars? Bring back the "Tufty Club"! (If any one else is old enough to remember this).

I'm not sure of the dates, but I believe that the very early 127's were in fact built on stretched 110 chassis which were taken off the line and cut and stretched in 'Special Vehicles'. As such they are modified 110's rather than genuine unmodified 127's (if this makes sense)! It doesn't mean that they are not "genuine", and I would have expected the V5 to indicate that they were 127's since they would have been modified before being registered (they wouldn't have taken a finished 110 to strip and modify). Once the 127 had proved to be popular and successful, purpose-built chassis were introduced and the cut and stretch mod became unnecessary.

We had a sudden heavy shower here at about 04.30 this morning but sadly no thunder. Like you, I love extreme weather (reminds us how insignificant we are compared to nature)! Nice to get that fresh wet smell after all this hot dry weather.

The law says you need the V5 for any road-going number plate now, but some places will make up "show plates" without seeing V5, the onlyproviso is that you shouldn't use them on the road. One you have them, who cares? It's a bit of a farce really. Reputable makers won't do this. If you happen to tow with an oldie (pre 1972) with black/silver plates then the trailer plate must also be black/silver, not reflective. If you have reflective plates on the towing vehicle, then the trailer plate must be reflective. You see an awful lot of people towing things with no plate, the wrong plate, or homemade plates - all illegal - and they seem to get away with it.

I asked the same thing and was told he just removed the one sling and let it hang vertically.

Just been sent this - I am told that it is genuine - the crane is apparently being operated by the wife of the man on the mower!

"Dangerous Tree Removal" rather cuts both ways

Impressive demo! If all designers had to have that much confidence in their products, there would be fewer rubbish tools about. I wonder how reliable it is and what happens if the wood has a high moisture content? If it is prone to tripping falsely it could quickly become expensive.

The comment on YouTube from the woman who posted the video says: "The guys who were cutting down this tree next to my apartment are full of fail, but I'll save you the suspense -- there is no epic fail. "Make sure you watch with sound -- my neighbors' commentary is kinda funny. Ignore my comments -- I sound pretty dumb =P "Things that happened after this video: they leaned a ladder against the trunk of the tree and started cutting from the MIDDLE of the tree. The chainsaw blade then got stuck in the tree. I had to leave after that but when I got back home, there was a stack of logs where the tree used to be."

My Sonim has sofar proved very tough and is waterproof. It is a primitive phone (it makes calls, but doesn't take photos etc), but is a few years old now. Sonim make the 'tough' phones for the JCB and Landrover brands.

I had to move my (road registered and street-legal) 1961 Iron Fairy yard crane a short distance along the A361 over the weekend. 12 mph flat out, no suspension, and rear-wheel steering. At one point I pulled over to let a slow moving bus overtake. A new experience for me!

Simple - hand the keys in as requested and then send the insurance company an invoice for your time, mileage and phone calls! Get some money back from an insurance company, for a change.