UKTC Archive

Re: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit

Subject: Re: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit
From: Wayne Tyson
Date: Nov 26 2019 16:55:22
With respect to cost:benefit ratios, a huge problem in the entire system
here in the US, is that, despite having sufficient computer power to
maintain and massage a databank, little or no actual *honest* research is
being done.

Let's try to explain the details of the conclusions to which we jump with
facts beforehand, or simply admit that we're guessing.

If we want (shudder) to do a cold, money-only, Ford Pinto-like calculation,
we should ask our agencies, *at the very least*, to provide a comparison of
the amount of *proactive* (Is there any other kind?) tree management being
done and the money being laid out for claims, judgments, and the direct and
indirect costs of associated agency work (lawyers, staff, resources,
diversion from other work, cleanup (aka, destruction of evidence at a crime
scene), damage to public facilities, impacts to the public health system,
emergency resources etc. Here, we spend a relative pittance on tree
management and fail to gather/collate relevant data. All of this because,
even such as they are, the bean-counters are bouncing their balls instead
of applying their highly "educated" intellects. My guess is, that even a
modest program of monitoring trends in tree stability would pay off in
reduced liability costs.

This, of course, entirely discounts the *value* of lives, physical and
psychological injuries, and ripple-effects to our communities and the costs
to private entities (funeral costs, etc.)

And, of course, we still lose the tree, which when it comes down, often
destroys or damages other trees, putting the remaining ones at increased
risk of premature loss and an increase in hazard potential.

"The opposite of love is not hate; the opposite of love is
*indifference!" *--Oscar
Wilde

Wayne

PS: Consider this: Improved tree management is a kind of "employment act"
for tree professionals.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 6:50 AM <oldoaktree@xxxxxxxxx.net> wrote:

As someone who always finds that motorcycles make thing better, I always
do my surveys on powered 2 wheels.

I did a few rural estates this year, for all publically accessible areas.
It is easy to stop at each tree without causing traffic chaos and a quick
jump off to have a closer look is not hard (pains me to stay it but a step
through ped would be even better- ride it on a car licence). After you've
done the road you can do the field side easy enough without causing damage
to crops or soils. You would need AT tyres for ploughed fields though!

So much easier to quickly come to a stop and have a ponder. Is good fun
too!

Cheers

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of dlj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com
Sent: 26 November 2019 10:43
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit

To have a look at the back of every tree that could fall onto the highway
could bankrupt the state government.

Really?

OK, you have an unusual situation of low population density and long tree
lined roads but even so your conclusion that walk by rather than drive by
tree assessment could "bankrupt the Government" seems like a bit of a
stretch, to me.

Hey, just thought of something.

What about Google Earth "Fly By" assessments?



On 2019-11-25 20:05, David Evans wrote:
<<It seems to me to be like scanning one side of a two sided piece of
paper and believing that you know the whole story.>>

Hi David

There's no belief that they know the whole story.  The design is that
one side of paper will be scanned at speed.

The context is Tasmania's Depart of State Growth has about 3700 miles
of roads and millions of trees.  Trees provide many benefits that they
need, and the overall risk from tree failure is extremely low.  Given
this, to have a look at the back of every tree that could fall onto
the highway is not reasonable, proportionate, or reasonably
practicable tree risk-benefit management.  To do so might bankrupt the
state government, or mean they couldn't provide many other important
services.  The design is that they're trying to find 'obvious
defects'.  To try and find defects that aren't obvious by looking at
the back of each tree would be grossly disproportionate to the likely
reduction in overall risk.

Cheers

Acer Ventura




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/