Treewolf

If the Hilux has an unladen weight not exceeding 2040kg and has full-time or part-time all-wheel-drive, then it is a Dual Purpose vehcile and is subject to normal car spped limits. Check the unladen weight figure though, since trucks and 4x4s have been getting heavier of late. A quick Google suggests that the heaviest 2016 Hilux 4x4 double cab has a kerb weight of 2080kg. Since the kerb weight usually includes a driver (70kg usually) and a full tank of fuel, then the unladen weight must be under 2040kg, thus meaning that it is still a DPV. Be careful bolting too many goodies on though, since if they are bolted on they may be considered to increase the unladen weight (since they are not readily removable).

The situation is actually very simple: if your vehicle genuinely IS a Dual Purpose Vehicle as defined in the Road Vehciles (Construction and Use) Regulations (1986) (as amended) then it is subject to DPV speed limits, which are the same as a 'normal' car. If your vehicle is a goods vehicle, heavy or light, the it is subject to the appropriate reduced speed limits. There is much confusion on this subject, and I have heard first hand evidence that many speed awareness course "instructors" do not know the legal situation re. DPVs and consequently give misinformation. The definition of a Dual Purpose Vehicle is reasonably complex and very specific. To stand any chance of being a DPV the vehicle in question must have an unladen weight (note, unladen, not kerb weight or "Mass In Service" etc) which does not exceed 2040kg. Note also that DPV status and hence speed limits are not affected at all, and have no effect upon, vehicle taxation classes (the people who tell you that because your Defender is in the N1 tax class it is therefore subject to a reduced speed limit are talking complete rubbish).

Preheating the rod help a lot, I find. Also ensures that it is dry.

That's what I keep telling myself, the trouble is I can no longer remember what they are.

My radio of choice is the Entel HT series transceiver, which is available in a range of versions for Private Licenced radio frequencies as well as a version for PMR446 licence-free. They are expensive at around £200 per transceiver, but are very robust. They are also fully submersible, so not only does rain or the occasional dunking not matter, but you can wash them if they have got covered in crud. There are thousands of reasonable cheap PMR446 transceivers available now, varying from kiddy play quality to top-of-the-range units like the Entel HT446.

Anyone have a view on the Eliet Neo electric shredders? How do they compare to the Bosch etc?

That seems unlikely considering that the crushed curtainsider was in lane 1 alongside the wagon on the hard shoulder at the time of the accident.

If you look at a pre-accident Google streetview image you can see that (a) the clearance under the bridge is much less over the hard shoulder on the London-bound carriageway, and (b) that the extreme end of the now-dislodged span is very thin, and presumably therefore light. It wouldn't take much to dislodge that. It also explains why the damage to the excavator is so minimal, and it hasn't even broken the chains securing it to the transporter. I think that the link below will show the view, if I've got it right! https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3088252,0.3800043,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxKWMDHJZQ_cn9mgjemIkDg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 Given that the motorway was evidently fairly busy, it is a minor miracle that there were no fatalities and only one significant injury!

I can see some merit in having your blood group tattooed on your shoulder, plus if appropriate allergy info, and maybe "do not resus", but I don't really get the attraction of tats myself. I have no issue with others having them, and wouldn't discriminate, and I work with a lot of tattooed people (servicemen and ex-servicemen on the whole). I find tattooed chicks even more baffling and have met several otherwise stunners who've - in my opinion - disfigured themselves hideously. Still it's horses for courses and what one person finds ugly someone else will love. It's what makes the world a wonderful, diverse and interesting place!

Railway law is (of course) complex, but in general I believe that if you damage (or do something which risks damaging) trains or endanger the safety of rail users you face prosecution under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or the Malicious Damage Act 1861. If there is provable intent, the sentence can include life imprisonment. So by cutting those trees in a manner which potentially endangers passing trains, you could face charges even if you are unaware of the danger you are inadvertantly causing. Offences involving trespass on railway property (which is unlikely to take place if you took them down from the garden side) is covered by the Railway Regulation Act 1840, the Regulation of the Railways Act 1868, and British Transport Commission Act 1949. Penalties are significantly less, eg 1 month's imprisonment and/or fines. A risk assessment of the operation to remove/reduce these trees would in my opinion show that whilst the likelihood of a mishap causing danger to railway operations is small, the consequences are potentially catastrophic (multiple fatalities and millions in property damage if a passing train is derailed at speed). Getting this one wrong could be a life-changing experience for the you as the property owner and for your contractor, and I commend you for coming on here to ask for advice. Personally I beleive that you must involve Network Rail and if possible persuade NR to remove the trees at their own expense. After all, they haven't produced any evidence that the trees are dangerous or a statutory nuisance, and it is they who want them gone, not you. Good luck!

Thank you!

I am so sorry guys, I think overwork and stress must be doing my head in - I had completely forgotten that I had already posted this question when I asked the exact same question again yesterday! Boy, do I feel stupid now or what! Slim, I will pm you my email address and if you're still willing to help out the the pratt of the epoch I would be extremely grateful. Off for a large bowl of humble pie!

I am so sorry guys, I think overwork and stress must be doing my head in - I had completely forgotten that I had already posted my question and not followed up on it! I'd also quoted "FS-85" in the first thread so it didn't show up when I just searched for "FS85". Boy, do I feel stupid now or what! Slim, I will pm you my email address and if you're still willing to help out the the pratt of the epoch I would be extremely grateful. Off for a large bowl of humble pie!

Does anyone know where I might be able to get hold of a service/workshop manual for a Stihl FS85 brushcutter without parting with loads of cash? I've found a few places online that claim to have free downloads but they all seem to be at the dodgy end of the spectrum. I'd be grateful for any help, thanks.

Can anyone point me to a free download of a service/workshop manual for a Stihl FS-85 brushcutter please? Googling appears to turn some up but they all seem to be rather dodgy looking sites which require registration or have very unsavoury-looking links! I'd be very grateful if anyone knows of one. Thanks.

Very nice, very fitting. Beautiful work, and I am sure that it will be highly appreciated.

I imagine that that must be quite difficult for the guy who's steering the car. It must get some interesting reactions from onlookers!

Stihl MS 461-R Rescue Saw unless I am much mistaken.

Another vote for the the Clarke 240V corded one, it simply can't be beaten for value for money. If you need a cordless one, sell a kidney and buy a Milwaukee 18V Fuel impact driver, pricey but totally excellent.

Now back in stock if anyone's interested, though the 48" version seems to be going fast.

Thank you!

Could someone post a link to the firm that makes and sell these? The ebay link at the start has expired. Thanks.

Deffo illegal, and the fact that two posters in this thread haven't been pulled for doing it doesn't make it legal, it makes them lucky. If you "A"-frame a vehicle for transportation purposes it legally becomes a trailer and, if the maximum permitted gross weight of the "trailer" exceeds 750kg it must have brakes on all wheels which comply with the minimum efficiency specified in EU law. It will not, and cannot achieve this. It would also have to comply with all the other trailer regulations (handbrakes, lights, reflectors, auto-reverse brakes, etc). No chance! If you are recovering a broken down vehicle you can use an "A"-frame, but only to recover it to the "nearest safe place", which will be the first layby or similar area where the casualty can be left off the carriageway. From that point on, "A"-framing it would not be allowed. In this case the casualty must of course be taxed, tested, and insured. The only safe and legal way to move your new van is on a trailer or flatbed.

Breathtaking! That's probably my favourite photo sofar out of the many stunning pictures you've posted!

I grew up in a house which had a mature (100+ year old) yew hedge along two sides of the garden - the house had been built in what was originally the kitchen garden area of a big posh house - and the hedge had been planted to make a pretty screen to mask the productive area. The big house had by then become offices. We were mortified one year when contractors arrived and cut back the big house's side to the bare stems, where previously the hedge had stretched probably 10' out from stem to tip on each side. The our neighbour did the same thing to "his" stretch of the hedge, and the result looked like telegraph poles. Everyone thought the hedge was ruined, and would never recover, if indeed it even survived. However, a few years later the cut lengths of hedge had regrown from the (closely-planted) stems and the cut sections looked absolutely stunning, far better than the uncut lengths. Eventually we cut our section, and now, probably 40 years afterwards, the hedge is an absolute picture (my mum still lives in the house). (Perhaps more extraordinary to the modern H&S fanatic, I and my sister grew up as infants in a garden filled with yew trees without poisoning ourselves or suffering any ill-effects). The point I am getting at is that in my experience yew, given time, regenerates incredibly well. Although cutting that hedge in the article back to the property line will cause it for a few years to look butchered, it will recover and will look stunning. It can't be denied that allowing it to grow so far over the wall was a big error of judgement on the owner's part (or more likely a previous owner) and it should have been kept cut further back. The reasons given (actionable nuisance for H&S reasons) are laughable - it isn't a risk - but, to be fair to the LA, some prodnose serial complainer has kicked off about it and the LA cannot do nothing now. (Failure to react properly can be discovered by the complainer by a FOI Act request, and you can bet that they'll persue the LA if there's the slightest hint of improper behaviour). Fact, the hedge encroaches over the wall, fact, the hedge is legally an actionable nuisance, fact, whether or not it is a nice or historic hedge doesn't make it OK. Sad but true. I bet also that the person who complained is a "towny" who's just moved into the village. It is a stunning hedge and it probably will get cut. It will recover and look stunning again, and to be honest I can't really get too worked up about it. I'd rather it didn't get cut, but we live in a world which is overrun with idiots and imbeciles who have no appreciate on real worth and what really matters, and have absolutely no common sense. I wouldn't mind betting also that the owner suffers from gout or some such which makes wearing a shoe intolerably painful. Perhaps criticising his slipper amount so making fun of the handicapped and is in rather poor taste!