Jump to content

Lutz

Approved Member
  • Content Count

    5,734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lutz


  1. The governments of other countries have chartered planes for the express purpose of repatriating their nationals in the event of them being stranded overseas so why shouldn't the UK do so too? Lufthansa alone has brought back 160,000 Germans.

    • I agree completely 1

  2. 4 hours ago, DeeTee said:

    Lutz  may live in Germany but may not be a German national.

     

    I don't know where nationality comes into play. Whatever country you are in you have to abide by the laws of that country and here in Germany, unless you placed under home quarantine following a virus test, there are no restrictions where you can go and for how long you can leave your home just as long as you maintain social distancing and there are no more than two of you or other members of the household. In fact, if you can get out into the countryside, extended walks are even recommended. Now that seems logical to me.

    • I agree completely 1

  3. 5 minutes ago, Grandpa Steve said:

     

    What about tying up emergency services potentially exposing them or you to the virus, hiking across hills where there is no one in sight probably means no access roads so will need mountain rescue or a rescue helicopter call out.

     

    How difficult is it to understand the message "Stay at home" and make no unnecessary journeys!

     

     

     

    What's a mountain rescue or helicopter got to do with it? If I feel reasonably fit when I get up in the morning I'm not going to get so ill so quickly that I can't return home if need be. I'm not away that long.

    There's about as much of a chance of having to call emergency services while at home as there is when I'm out on a hike.

    I simply fail to see the logic of the argument.

    • Sad 2
    • I agree completely 2

  4. I wish someone can explain to me why I should stay at home. I fully agree with the need to maintain social distancing, in fact I even cross the road if someone is coming in the opposite direction on the same footpath, but for the life of me I can't understand why I shouldn't continue to take a drive into the hills for long hikes where I know I won't meet anybody.


  5. Tyres don't need to be rotated to remove possible flat spots. Dealers don't do it, neither with caravans nor with cars, and they may be standing on their forecourts for many months. If there are any flat spots, they will iron themselves out after a first mile or two next time you take the caravan for a run.

    • Like 1
    • I agree completely 1

  6. One has to accept the fact that legislation can only state a cut and dried breakpoint. In practice, however, there is quite a substantial grey area to go through before an outfit can be described unsafe. Some will always be more stable than others at the same weight ratio. For that reason one must leave it up to the individual where to stand in that grey area, in other words where it is still more white than grey or where it is just short of turning black. Driving habits also play a big part. He who never goes over 50mph when towing obviously has a bigger margin of safety to play with, allowing him a greater weight ratio, than he who takes full advantage of the speed limit.


  7. When travelling we want to be able to use the caravan for lunch stops en route so the awning would be in the way if it were in the caravan. Besides, despite the caravan having a 400kg payload margin, we are sailing too close to the MTPLM to have the awning in the caravan, so it must go in the car.


  8. 1 hour ago, Black Grouse said:

     

    The whole point of advising against ANY unnecessary travel is to reduce road accidents which in turn reduces pressure on the police, ambulance and hospitals - caravanning cannot be considered necessary by any stretch of the imagination so any active caravanner is acting very anti-socially.

     

    Advising against unnecessary travel as a measure to reduce accidents? You must be joking. I would have thought it's obvious that the intent is to reduce the geopraphical spread of the virus by containment of possible contacts.

    • Like 2
    • I agree completely 3

  9. 3 hours ago, Steamdrivenandy said:

    Most manufacturers quote a Kerbweight including a 75kg allowance for a driver. Indeed Skoda did, up until they introduced the 2013 Octavia when they decided to quote kerbweight without the 75kg allowance. Some motoring journalists were taken in and trumpeted the enormous weight saving between it and the previous model. It was, nearly all, smoke and mirrors, though there was a small weight reduction between the two. 

     

     

    Kerbweight, by definition, is without 75kg for the driver. If it's with the driver it's not kerbweight but mass in running order/mass in service.


  10. With less than 900 confirmed cases in Japan the country has a lot fewer than one would expect in that part of the world. One suspects that the number is being held artifically low by not carrying out as many tests as they should, possibly to reassure the organisers of the Olympic Games. It is quite possible that other countries are also keeping their figures low, either for political reasons or because they simply don't have the resources to carry out enough tests.


  11. A recommendation is just that, a statement of good intent, but without any consequence. If it were conclusive it would, or should, be a requirement and not a recommendation. For that reason it must be up to the individual how serious it should be taken. or whether to ignore it


  12. 23 minutes ago, limecc said:

     

    My motor insurance covers it while on the move.

     

    I still don't care. It's not being reckless it's my choice.

     

    Only while it's hitched. If you unhitch and forget to put the handbrake on and it rolls down the road and runs over a child on his bicycle, it wouldn't be covered. The result could be a very expensive accident.

    • Like 1

  13. 11 hours ago, Black Grouse said:

    To me, caravanning seems a good way of semi-isolation especially using the onboard facilities - the only change we're going to make is not to eat out in the evenings, a bit more work but manageable.

     

    That's basically the principle that we are going by as well. We don't eat out anyway so we shouldn't notice much of a change so long as there are no restrictions in movement. We're still planning to go to Spain at the end of April/early May, although we accept that we may possibly have to bypass regions en route where quarantine restrictions apply.


  14. I have learnt to question every report that read in the media, whether social or printed, so I try not to draw conclusions from headlines alone, so I don't see that much difference between the two, just motivation to gain further information.

    • I agree completely 3

  15. What is the urgency behind your question? Is it because you intend to use it soon after taking delivery? I presume that you mean the label that goes next to the door and not the statutory plate (unless Coachman has combined the two). The statutory plate will already show the upgraded figure and has all the details that are legally required, so if the caravan has two plates, there can be nothing wrong with using the caravan with the label next to the door removed until the new one arrives.


  16. 4 minutes ago, Borussia 1900 said:

    That's incorrect, Germany has had deaths, at least 2 of which were in the next town to MG, Heinsberg.

     

    For that reason I'd be very wary of reading further responses by Borussia just in case they transmit the virus :D

     

    No deaths and only a handful of unconfirmed cases anywhere near to where I live.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...