Treewolf

Re the MOT, a goods vehicle with a design gross weight or GVW not exceeding 3000kg is Class 4, but one with a GVW over 3000kg but not exceeding 3500kg is Class 7. A DPV is not a goods vehicle at all in the eyes of the law (since DPV is a distinct category in its own right) and is Class 4 (but remember it must weigh less than 2040kg unladen and not exceed 3500kg laden). The problem is that it is not easy for the tester to determine whether a vehicle is a DPV or a GV in many cases since it depends on the unladen weight, which is not recorded anywhere. VOSA/DVSA at present allow MOT testers to test vehicles which appear to be DPVs as though they were known to be DPVs, ie the tester has an element of freedon of choice. This whole subject of MOT classes for DPVs is very widely misunderstood, and as a result I had a long correspondence with VOSA last year trying to get to the bottom of it. It turned out to be a long correspondence since I was asking questions to which VOSA simply did not know the answers, and they were having to refer to various specilaised "policy units" for answers! My questions specifically related to Defenders, but they are equally applicable for any DPV. The points on which I sought clarification included these, which are relevant to the earlier posts: 1) If a vehicle which is by law a Class 4 vehicle is tested improperly for whatever reason as a Class 7 vehicle, then, assuming that the vehicle passes the (improper) test, is it roadworthy and does it have a "valid MOT Test Certificate" as required by law? It is not inconceivable that a vehicle could pass a Class 4 test and yet fail a Class 7, for example, although I don't think that the reverse is true since the pass criteria for the Class 7 are more stringent. 2) When a vehicle is presented for test, whose responsibility is it that the correct Class of test is undertaken? It is very evident that most Defender owners don't actually know which MOT class should be applied (they accept what the test centre tells them) and equally no test centres actually know that the law says a LWB Defender is a DPV and therefore should be Class 4, they do what VOSA via the computer tells them. Yet there is no provision on the VOSA system to present the ULW and therefore VOSA cannot say whether a Defender is a DPV or not. This point is more important than it may at face value appear, since many other legalities depend on DPV status (such a speed limits) and yet the UK National registration authority simply has no idea whether most DPVs are legally DPVs or not. 3) How does the tester know which Class of test should be applied? 4) What weight information about a vehicle is recorded on DVSA/VOSA/other official systems? DVSA's eventual (written) reply included the following:- 1) Validity of test certificate. Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended states; 'A person who uses on a road at any time, or causes or permits to be so used, a motor vehicle to which this section applies, and as respects which no test certificate has been issued within the appropriate period before that time, is guilty of an offence'. Only a court of law can give a legal definition of this. However, where we have identified vehicles which have been issued a certificate of the wrong class in the past we have only advised the owner/user to obtain the correct certificate. In your case the Class 7 test is more onerous than that of Class 4 so it has been tested to a higher standard than required. 2) Responsibility to identify the class of Vehicle. The responsibility lies with the tester based on the vehicle presented to him and any supporting evidence that is supplied and referring to test documentation i.e. testguide/manual. The reason it is down to the tester is that vehicles can be converted/modified which will have an effect on the unladen weight. 3) How does the tester know what class the vehicle is to be tested to. By using their experience and judgement based on the answer to question 2 above. If a tester believes that the test class that had previously been entered on the DVSA computer system is incorrect, the tester can enter a different class for the test he is about to complete. 4) What information about the vehicles weight is recorded on the DVSA database. The only weight that is recorded on the database is the weight used for the brake test calculation if it is required. This could be presented weight, design gross weight or the brake test weight on the vehicle specific information database currently supplied under a 3rd party contract depending on the class of vehicle and equipment used. That I think is as good a reply as you could hope for.

Remember that change only affected heavy goods vehicles, not light goods vehicles (and didn't apply to Scotland). Currently national max speed limits for single carriageways, dual carriageways, and motorways are as follows: - Cars and DPVs: 60/70/70 mph - Light goods: 50/60/70 mph - Heavy goods 50/60/60 mph A vehicle which is a DPV should always be tested as Class 4 for the MOT, not Class 7. When I asked my MOT tester why he had insisted on testing it as Class 7 despite it being a DPV, his response was "what's a dual purpose vehicle?" !! A short educational experience then followed, and he only charged me for a Class 4! Although generally it makes little difference, it is worth remembering that a Dual Purpose Vehicle is not legally a Goods Vehicle. They are separate and distinct things defined in the C&U regs. A DPV will generally now be Type Approved as N1, and taxed as N1, as will light goods vehicles, but the TA class and Tax class have no bearing on the actual vehicle type classification and speed limits. (For example, a 1949 Land-Rover is legally just as much a Dual Purpose Vehicle as a 2015 Defender, but its tax class will be Historic Vehicle. Until recently the predominent tax class was "Private/Light Goods", which included cars, DPVs, and goods vehicles under 3.5 tons GVW.) There's nothing like cutting red tape, and this is nothing like cutting red tape!

Does this look too good to be true? ELIET SUPER PROF MOBILE CHIPPER SHREDDER SELF DRIVE A very new-looking £10k+ shredder listed with a low starting bid, listed by someone with no feedback at all as a seller. Who chooses £543 as the starting price anyway? It smells to me like a scam.

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.