| |
Subject |
Author |
Date Posted |
Forum
|
 |
RE: Another Tire Question
Chuck I had not thought about the rim width. You are right they are only 5". Looks like that could be a limiting factor. The rims do not have a visible weight or psi rating anywhere on them. If it is there it must be stamped on the inside which really does not help as that means I won't know until they take the tire off the rim. I don't think there should be a problem going from C to D or which is going from 50 to 65 psi. I can see where going to 80 psi with and E rating could be an issue.
|
shakyjay
|
05/12/13 04:52pm |
Travel Trailers
|
|
RE: Another Tire Question
To clarify some of the questions the trailer has gvwr of 7980 max I run it about 7600. Tongue weight is about 1100. Don't really want to change rims as I can't see justifying the expense for what little we are running at this time. The tires on it currently are the originals from when it was purchased in 2006 and have never given any problems, even though they are Chinese made. One of them has developed a slow leak and sidewalls are beginning to crack on all of them. I do store it at my house and typically check pressure every couple of weeks. I always run my tires at max pressure on the trailer.
My original thought was to go to a D rated tire seeing as to how there is really not much of a price differential. Salesman at tire store suggested the 225 E rated which sounded a bit like overkill to me. I think he is going off his own experience with a fifth wheel toy hauler that runs a lot heavier. In this area that is mostly what he sees and most of them run overloaded.
So I guess that really just leaves me to determine if I just go with an exact replacement which is a C rated tire or jump it up to the D rated.
Thanks for all your input it is really very helpful.
|
shakyjay
|
05/12/13 02:13pm |
Travel Trailers
|
|
Another Tire Question
Time for new tires. Currently have ST205/75/15C's. They are the originals and up til now have been fine however age is taking it's toll and sidewalls are cracking. Stopped at America's Tire. Seems they now are not stocking the Towmasters which was one of the tires I was considering. Instead they have gone back to stocking the Carlisles that supposedly have been redesigned. I have done some research and it appears the new RH does have some improvements. After much discussion with the salesman who actually said he is running the Carlisles on his 13,500 lb. fifth wheel. He recommended that if I have the clearance to go with a Carlisle ST225/75/15 E rated tire. Supposedly it should only require about an 1.25 inches more of clearance. So my options are just replace with original size and range in a ST205 or what my original intent was to go ST205 in a D range or go up to the ST225 in load range E. Price between the three is really not that much difference D range $50 more than C and ST225 $80 more than C. The other option I am considering is to have him order the Maxxis. Price for them in ST250/75/15C is about $100 more than the same Carlisle. He absolutely did not recommend Marathons and said he could order the Towmasters but really did not recommend them either.
So after all that I am simply looking for some input to help me decide which option would be the best. I do not tow full time. Actually now days the trailer sits more than it moves. What travels we do use it for are generally no more than a couple of hundred miles one way. Occasionally we may go a little further. I do not run heavy but would like a little cushion.
|
shakyjay
|
05/12/13 12:31am |
Travel Trailers
|
|
RE: The Song Title Game
FIRE - Emerson, Lake & Palmer
|
shakyjay
|
04/25/13 12:58pm |
Around the Campfire
|
 |
RE: My last time in Best Buy
Wow so much ado here about nothing. Stores have policies when it comes to bagging merchandise. Personally I have not seen this at Best Buy but as long as as it is the norm for every customer I really don't understand what the problem is. As for me I generally ask them not to bag my items, unless of course it would be difficult for me to carry otherwise. The way I look at it there is enough trash already and I certainly don't need to add any more than necessary. In many communities the plastic bags have been banned totally. In some they tack on a charge for their use.
As far as checking receipts at the door. Costco, Sam's Club etc. are membership stores and if you check the member agreement you will find it gives them the right to do so. In most places and under most circumstances other stores do not necessarily have the right. That being the case you can simply choose to keep walking and not show your receipt. They can ask as long as they are asking everyone but you can also refuse. It can get a little complicated in some cases though and if asked is probably just easier to show it and leave. Do a search and you will find all kinds of stories and information on the subject.
Although it has been years, I have worked retail management as well as been in charge of loss prevention on a district level for one company. Some of the numbers as far as acceptable loss that are being used here really floor me. I guess things have changed but my operations never ran over 1%. These figures of 5% astound me. None of the companies I ever worked for would have accepted anything near that. The figure of 70% of losses being attributed to employees is also a little misleading. Generally those figures come from what they catch. Well the reality is that yes most of what they catch is employees. Why? Because they are the easiest to watch and catch. Simply put it is all in how you report the statistics.
|
shakyjay
|
04/18/13 02:54pm |
Around the Campfire
|
|
RE: The Song Title Game
Leave - Seals & Crofts
|
shakyjay
|
04/16/13 09:42pm |
Around the Campfire
|
|
RE: San Luis Obispo area east to I-5 is CA 58 good?
Would not recommend the route for a motorhome especially one that is towing. The fact that truck traffic is banned from much of it pretty much tells you what to expect. There are no services along that section.
|
shakyjay
|
04/16/13 11:01am |
Roads and Routes
|
|
RE: The Song Title Game
SKIN - Collective Soul
|
shakyjay
|
04/04/13 04:58pm |
Around the Campfire
|
|
RE: The Song Title Game
STILL - Jason McCoy
|
shakyjay
|
04/02/13 08:53am |
Around the Campfire
|
|
RE: Avast Replacement
Avira works well for me. The only time I get a pop-up on the free version is when it does an update. Can set how often you want it to check for updates. I have also used AVG and found it to be effective as well.
|
shakyjay
|
03/29/13 08:45am |
Technology Corner
|
|
RE: Do you get it fixed?
I would get both the box and bumper fixed with a truck that new. How do you know that the claim will cause an increase in your insurance?
|
shakyjay
|
03/22/13 12:59pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Backing into position to hitch a trailer: (Need tips.)
The way I do it might not work for everyone as you have to be able to lower your tailgate while hitched. I lower the tailgate which makes it easier to see the jack. I center the jack with the bolts holding the tailgate handle which is in the center. Having the tailgate down I can also better see how close I am to the jack from the end of the tailgate. Having done it enough times I pretty much know how far back to go. I get out and look one time. If I need to adjust forward or back I look at how far and leave truck door open with my foot out. I look straight down for a mark directly under my foot and move the direction I need and stop when my foot is has gone the distance required. Get back out raise tailgate lower trailer and finish everything up.
I never have anyone help me hitch up. I can usually get it done as quickly or quicker than most people around me. Just takes a little practice and common sense. The alignment balls or a camera will also work well.
|
shakyjay
|
03/21/13 06:36pm |
Travel Trailers
|
|
RE: Illegal or not?
Whether or not it is illegal or not it is a very "antisocial" thing to do and you should not do it. Or if you do, when you park, back it into a place where no one could possibly walk into it.
I say this only because walking into it when parked is very painful and could seriously hurt someone, and I think that you would be liable both morally and legally if you hurt someone.
As for the other part - increased damage when somebody drives into it because they didn't stop quick enough - Good; they deserve it.
Seriously you think one would or should be legally responsible for an injury that occurs because they walked into a ball attached to a vehicle. It seems that from the discussion here having said ball attached is not in itself illegal, at least in most places. That being the case I am having trouble understanding what the legal premise would be that would make one liable for such an injury. It is just like any other part of the vehicle.
It wouldn’t have to legal or illegal to get it into court, one could just claim the injury was caused by your negligence by leaving it in… if it’s left in knowingly the claim might read willfully negligent…
The legality is what allows for one to leave the ball in. As for being willfully negligent. Willful, yes it is. Negligence is going to be a little tougher. I would argue that the negligence was on the part of the person walking and not observing their surroundings. In this day and age odds are real good they could be texting or talking on a cell phone which would only strengthen my argument. Even if it is determined that leaving said ball in is a negligent act there is still the argument of contributory negligence which could relieve defendant of liability. Depending on the circumstances there could also be other arguments a defendant could use.
Reality is that such an injury would more than likely not go beyond the limits of small claims. As we all know small claims does not have lawyers or juries therefore it is just the judge. The judges I have known would pretty much laugh and throw it out. And I live in California where we are supposedly so liberal about such matters.
Reality is that you can pretty much sue anyone for anything. Winning and collecting are a different story.
your statement was,
“That being the case I am having trouble understanding what the legal premise would be that would make one liable for such an injury”
My opinion is still the same, there wouldn’t need to be a legal premise to make the claim of negligence… there will be arguments made from both sides and the results are not predetermined on what you or I think they ought to be… even if you successfully argue you case you will have an investment in defending yourself… the level of proof required is low enough that few judges especially at the lower level would deny to even hear the case…
In this thread alone you have heard many say they remove them because they were tired of walking into their own that they themselves left there and knew was there… I can easily see someone making the argument that it is not reasonable for one expect that some temporary and removable something is sticking out beyond the rear of the vehicle… we don’t need to agree, that is why there are courts…
Let me begin by stating that I do not normally leave my hitch attached. However there are times when it does stay in for various reasons. From my own observations I have found that leaving the hitch in is not uncommon.
Actually there does have to be a legal premise for a determination to be made. The premise you are putting forth is negligence. A valid legal premise and used quite frequently. I just don't feel that under normal circumstances, for the situation we are discussing, that it would prevail.
You are right that "the results are not predetermined by what you or I think they ought to be". I did a little quick research to see what sort of cases have been brought before the courts regarding issues of this type. Interesting thing is there is not a whole lot there. One would expect that if it was so easy to win such a case then there would be plenty of lawsuits. After all we do live in a very litigous society. I suspect there are a few reasons that I did not find too much. As I already stated if they do come up there is a good chance that they don't rise above the level of small claims. Don't really hear or see much information on small claims cases. I also suspect that most of the time when someone runs into a hitch, although it is painful it does not usually cause an injury that would rise to the level of seeking damages. I also suspect that a large percentage of the people who do run into them simply feel that it was their own fault. Lastly I think that more than likely if someone is facing such an issue they simply report it to their insurance company. I have no doubt that in some cases there are some settlements made by the insurer. More than likely they are simply for nuisance value just to get rid of it.
There were a couple of interesting cases I did find though. The first one was a few years back involving a city councilwoman in New York City. She cut her leg and brought suit against the vehicle owner. The ensuing publicity does not seem to have fared well for her. From what I could find public opinion did not really side with her. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it she dropped the case before it could come to trial. As such we don't know how the court would have ruled.
The more interesting case though did go to trial. It actully was not for a hitch protruding from a truck but for the extension on a trailer. Not a travel trailer. Although it is slightly different there are some things put forth in the ruling that are very pertinent to what we are discussing. The case was Butler v. Walmart in the State of Michigan. Initially the jury ruled against the defendant and awarded a substantial sum however on appeal it was overturned. The ruling in the appeal has some interesting points that do pertain specifically to this discussion. I am not going to post all of it but here a couple of things in it that pretty much sum up my point:
"After reviewing the testimony and the photographs of the assembly in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we cannot conclude that a question of fact existed regarding whether the trailer tongue constituted an open and obvious condition. At trial, plaintiff’s expert offered several reasons to explain why the low-lying protrusion would have been difficult for the typical pedestrian to see while walking in a normal manner.4 The expert admitted, however, that the trailer tongue was in plain view had one been looking at it. He specifically stated that the trailer tongue was “not invisible,” that it was “shown in the photographs,” and that a person “could stand right there and see every detail of it.” Plaintiff also acknowledged that the trailer tongue and the waist-high winch were visible from the view depicted in the photographs. In any event, plaintiff’s actual theory at trial was that the trailer tongue was not open and obvious from the angle at which he approached it by walking alongside the huge barbecue assembly and sharply turning the corner where the trailer tongue and winch were located. Plaintiff has not cited, nor have we found, authority for the proposition that the manner in which a person approaches the alleged hazard, or the fact that plaintiff chose a path that hewed so closely to the assembly that he could not see around it, negates its obvious nature."
"Unlike in Bertrand, there is no indication that the barbecue assembly and its attachments were unusual in “character, location, or surrounding conditions.” It is not uncommon for parking lots to contain trailers, vehicles with protruding attachments, or low-lying obstacles. Nor is it unusual for pedestrians to have to navigate around vehicles, trailers, or other low-lying obstacles as they negotiate their way through a parking lot. Further, although plaintiff’s expert testified that the manner in which the assembly was parked created the impression of a walkway both in front of the assembly and along the end of it where the trailer tongue was located, plaintiff was not required to follow the path he chose to return to his vehicle. Indeed, plaintiff testified that he took a different route from his vehicle to the store than he took from the store to the vehicle, so an alternative route was available and known to plaintiff. Cf. Perry v Hazel Park Harness Raceway, 123 Mich App 542, 550; 332 NW 2d 601 (1983) (holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict where the plaintiff “attempt(ed) to safely negotiate an unavoidablehazard”)."
The entire ruling is not too long and can be read here Butler v. Walmart Appeal Ruling
|
shakyjay
|
03/21/13 05:54pm |
Travel Trailers
|
|
RE: Illegal or not?
Whether or not it is illegal or not it is a very "antisocial" thing to do and you should not do it. Or if you do, when you park, back it into a place where no one could possibly walk into it.
I say this only because walking into it when parked is very painful and could seriously hurt someone, and I think that you would be liable both morally and legally if you hurt someone.
As for the other part - increased damage when somebody drives into it because they didn't stop quick enough - Good; they deserve it.
Seriously you think one would or should be legally responsible for an injury that occurs because they walked into a ball attached to a vehicle. It seems that from the discussion here having said ball attached is not in itself illegal, at least in most places. That being the case I am having trouble understanding what the legal premise would be that would make one liable for such an injury. It is just like any other part of the vehicle.
It wouldn’t have to legal or illegal to get it into court, one could just claim the injury was caused by your negligence by leaving it in… if it’s left in knowingly the claim might read willfully negligent…
The legality is what allows for one to leave the ball in. As for being willfully negligent. Willful, yes it is. Negligence is going to be a little tougher. I would argue that the negligence was on the part of the person walking and not observing their surroundings. In this day and age odds are real good they could be texting or talking on a cell phone which would only strengthen my argument. Even if it is determined that leaving said ball in is a negligent act there is still the argument of contributory negligence which could relieve defendant of liability. Depending on the circumstances there could also be other arguments a defendant could use.
Reality is that such an injury would more than likely not go beyond the limits of small claims. As we all know small claims does not have lawyers or juries therefore it is just the judge. The judges I have known would pretty much laugh and throw it out. And I live in California where we are supposedly so liberal about such matters.
Reality is that you can pretty much sue anyone for anything. Winning and collecting are a different story.
|
shakyjay
|
03/20/13 10:55pm |
Travel Trailers
|
|
RE: Steaming At Yellowstone
It is not just the Adminstration at fault. Congress especially the House has much to do with the problem.
Many cuts are being made to least effect operations not only in National parks but across the board.
Locals are creating more of a scare then realy exists.
Congress does not make a budget, the white house does. Congress passes the budget. They can't pass what is not presented to them to vote on. The Obama administration has not submitted a budget to congress for over 3 years now. A check was put in place, no budget then automatic cuts, called a sequester. So, tell me who's fault this is again?
We need to do a little fact check here.
The President has submitted a budget every year albeit late. Truth is that the budget for fiscal 2014 which was due the first monday in February has not yet been submitted. Numerous reasons or excuses however you want to look at it. Latest news is that it will be submitted on April 8. Again it is late but will be submitted. There has not been a budget passed by the Senate since 2009.
Obama is not the first President to be late with a budget submission. Both of the Bushes, Reagon, and Clinton also were late with at least one.
The subject of sequestration and how the cuts are made is widely misunderstood. Good reason because it is a little complicated. The reality is that it is not as much pick and choose as many people believe. A fairly good simple explanation of how it works can be found in this article from The Washington Post
|
shakyjay
|
03/20/13 07:57pm |
General RVing Issues
|
|
RE: Illegal or not?
Whether or not it is illegal or not it is a very "antisocial" thing to do and you should not do it. Or if you do, when you park, back it into a place where no one could possibly walk into it.
I say this only because walking into it when parked is very painful and could seriously hurt someone, and I think that you would be liable both morally and legally if you hurt someone.
As for the other part - increased damage when somebody drives into it because they didn't stop quick enough - Good; they deserve it.
Seriously you think one would or should be legally responsible for an injury that occurs because they walked into a ball attached to a vehicle. It seems that from the discussion here having said ball attached is not in itself illegal, at least in most places. That being the case I am having trouble understanding what the legal premise would be that would make one liable for such an injury. It is just like any other part of the vehicle.
|
shakyjay
|
03/20/13 12:52pm |
Travel Trailers
|
|
RE: Miter saw blade suggestions (12")
Since the above response is directed at my recommendation I guess I should explain my response.
I was answering the question from the standpoint of how to reduce the need to finish the cut side of a piece as the result of blade burn. For the type of cut in question raising the blade is a way to help accomplish that. It has nothing to do with saving the blade. I guess I should also clarify what I mean by a high blade. Typically the blade would be raised to expose about half the tooth or as stated above 1/8 to 1/4". A high blade would expose the blade 1 to 1 1/2".
I agree that safety is of the utmost importance in the shop. From strictly a finger saving approach setting the blade lower is the best approach. However in certain circumstances, such as the one described here, it does not always produce the best cut. The OP is talking about ripping some very hard wood. Having the blade higher will relieve some of the stress both on the blade and the motor. In some cases having the blade lower can increase the risk of kickback, another safety issue. While I realize there are different schools of thought on the approach one should take, it is not uncommon for an experienced woodworker to raise the blade for the reasons I have mentioned. Ultimately one has to realize that regardless of the approach they are dealing with a power tool that can cause injury.
|
shakyjay
|
03/20/13 08:19am |
Around the Campfire
|
|
RE: SAFEGUARD COVERS RENEGS ON WARRANTY
If the cover is defective then I can't see how Safeguard would not be liable for replacement within 5 years of original purchase. I went to their web site and carefully read through their warranty. It does not state anything about a limit of one replacement. That being the case the warranty is in effect during that initial 5 year period regardless of whether it has been replaced once, twice or a dozen times.
|
shakyjay
|
03/20/13 01:26am |
General RVing Issues
|
|
RE: Miter saw blade suggestions (12")
As Old-Biscuit said I would use the table saw with a new sharp 24 or 32 tooth blade. Make sure your fence is aligned properly. Raising blade high above the wood helps reduce burning. As he said you can make your first cut slight over then finish with kerf cut or you can use a jointer if you have one.
|
shakyjay
|
03/20/13 01:10am |
Around the Campfire
|
|
RE: Lying Groundhog
Have no idea what all you guys are talking about. I had the air on in the truck while I was running errands today. :)
|
shakyjay
|
03/19/13 09:33pm |
Around the Campfire
|
