Raw data such as this is relatively unhelpful because both sides of the
argument can make inferences from it that supports their view:
a. There is no need to inspect trees at all - risk of harm from trees is so
low resources would be better used elsewhere
b. We should regularly inspect trees from both sides - existing practice is
the only reason that risk of harm from tree failure is so low.
The truth will be somewhere in the middle but tree owners need to base their
decisions on a much better footing than we can with current data. This will
cost money and be challenging but isn't that always the case if something is
worthwhile.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: David Evans [mailto:david.evans@xxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk]
Sent: 16 July 2008 12:20
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Risk and Regulation Advisory Council & BS 8516
<<Some years ago an ASCA member on the West Coast attempted to collect
insurance data on injury or fatality (maybe property damage but I don't
recall) claims from trees. You would think that looking at those data with
and without tree risk management would be revealing. Problem was that
incidence was so low that the data were not broken out.>>
Hi Scott
Same over here. I've posted this before I think but the risk is so low it
doesn't even come onto the Insurance industry radars. I recently had reason
to follow up on this again and tree damage from failures or injury/death
doesn't even have a 'claim code'.
Cheers
Acer ventura
--
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/
--
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/
