Personally I think the document is fairly reasonable, I am surprised at how
few people have actually commented on the document give the amount of hot
air that has been released over the issue.
Has Howard hit the nail on the head and it is more about who is involved
rather than what has been written. Recently having reviewed a lot literature
about tree inspections and risk management have independently arrived at a
similar result.
I accept that there is an argument for no BS standard at all for tree
inspections. There is huge amount written on the subject and further
recommendations could be seen as further interference. BS should get on
with completing other standards that have stalled in committee (8993 or
example) But otherwise I do not see how anyone else can come up if a
significantly different document that everyone could agree on.
Delaying things until other interested parties have managed to drink enough
tea and do something worth while seems a little ridiculous and the standard
will stall like the other one and never get published.
I think the debate here should be, is a standard necessary? If no, then
lets all say so in comments to BS and move on.
The main problem is how to rationalise an unrational fear by the public that
trees are out to 'kill them' and if an inspector fails to observe a defect
that in the very very unlikely event hurts someone they may end up in court
on negligence charges.
If the standard moves us on from where we are now then it be worth while, my
opinion is I am still reading and re-reading it.
Perhaps and just a thought, there is a need for 2 standards or standard like
documents, 1 for the act of inspecting a tree and the other to managing the
risks presented by tree hazards.
Jon
2008/6/6 Mike Ellison <mike@xxxxx.co.uk>:
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim - Quaife Woodlands [mailto:jq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk]
Sent: 06 June 2008 14:16
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: BS8516 - postponement
The AA was not consulted and has had nothing to do with any of the
events leading up to the release of the draft.
------------------------------------------------------
Jim
This is contrary to my understanding. I understood that the AA has a
representative on the BSI 213 Committee and that he was aware of the
development of the Standard. I had assumed that Mick Boddy hadn't
referred back to the AA because the AA was represented on the committee.
Mike
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
--
Jonathan Mills N. Dip. Arb. (Btec)
Arboricultural Consultancy
___________________________________
17 Westhead Road North
Cookley
Kidderminster
DY10 3TJ
___________________________________
Tel: 01562 851054 or Mob: 07944 848051
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
