UKTC Archive

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit
From: Wayne Tyson
Date: Dec 03 2019 16:57:48
I use drive-bys a lot, but there's a lot that can be missed that can be
critical. The problem then (here in the US) is getting the responsible
agency to do the follow-up, even on glaring defects. They always get away
with murder, because the taxpayer pays the multi-million-dollar
settlements, judgments, etc. They destroy the evidence. They make excuses
instead of responding to public enquiry. They care more about their
"positions" than the victims, including the trees, and not to mention the
lives, misery, and property loss. If this ain't a crisis of indifference,*
I'd hate to see what is.

The "devil" remains in the DETAILS, but that doesn't mean that the limited
utility of drive-bys should not be considered. Even the removal of CLEAR
worst-cases is resisted, even by some professionals. Right. Then let them
bond for their charges and pay up when disaster strikes?

Wayne


On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 8:15 AM Howe, Ron <Ron.Howe@xxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk> wrote:

Trouble is Michael, it is reasonable, proportionate and practicable in the
circumstances ... until something goes wrong ... Which is why rather than
defining a drive by speed for example David might look to add those very
three terms to say, "as far is reasonably proportionate and practicable."
The person doing the job then defines what is appropriate for the day. I
like the idea somebody suggested that you can do so many miles a day (by
foot) and maybe that is the way to define it by car as an on average
expectation.

Ron Howe
Tree Officer (Planning)
Mole Valley District Council


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: 02 December 2019 11:40
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit

Warning: email from outside of MVDC - if in any doubt do not open links or
attachments, or carry out requested actions ________________________________


David I can see that we are getting no where here.

Perhaps one of the list's tree risk experts can tell us how you define:
1) It's not reasonable
2) It's not proportionate
3) It's not reasonably practicable

It seems to me that 5 year inspections as David keeps talking about is as
arbitrary as  6 years, though he now admits it is a suggestion only and
perhaps a place holder in his Tree Risk Management Strategy.  If the risk
managers cannot demonstrate the methodology to make the decision than the
decision seems to be made on gut feelings and what others are doing and
this is easily challenged in court.






Michael Richardson B.Sc.F., BCMA
Ontario MTCU Qualified Arborist
Richardson Tree Care
Richardsontreecare.ca
613-475-2877
800-769-9183

  <http://www.richardsontreecare.ca/images/Tree_Doc_logo_email.png>



On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 2:45 AM Wayne Tyson <wt750mv@xxxxxx.com> wrote:

The bane of scientific experiments is too many variables. Trying to
reduce such complexity into a formula may be impossible. The test, I
suspect, of any predictive tool, is not the authorities' opinions, so
much as it is feedback on what actually happens (predictive value).

Wayne

On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 10:22 PM David Evans <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com>
wrote:

<<David, after re-reading your website I am still left asking how do
you
determine:

1) It's not reasonable
2) It's not proportionate
3) It's not reasonably practicable>>

Hi Michael

I'm a bit baffled about what you're after here.  You first asked me...

<<Can you please tell us exactly what is reasonable, practical and
proportionate>>

Which is written up in VALID's Tree Risk-Benefit Management
Strategies, and you seem to be struggling with this*.  If you want
to know more, there's always Chapter 2 & 3 of the NTSG's Common
Sense Risk Management
of
Trees, which expands on it in more detail.  Or Professor David
Ball's "Public Safety & Risk Assessment".  I'm pretty certain I
can't explain it any further than what already I've set out.

Now, you appear to be asking why Jeremy's highways stuff isn't?

As for the rest.

<<I have no idea why you propose 5 years, not 4 or 6 or 7 years 2
months.>>

5 Years Active Assessment frequency is a serving suggestion based on
a number of points.  Not least the 'proportionate' factors that the
overall risk from tree failure is extremely low.  The "prospects of
reducing the risk from tree failure below the current level are
remote and comparable
to
finding a microscopic needle in a gargantuan haystack" - Professor
David Ball (part for the risk advisory team to NTSG)

In application, Kent County Council (who were the first local
government organisation to host VALID training) is one of the main
Highways Authorities in the UK, and they carry out a 5 yearly
assessment.
Birmingham City Council is the largest municipality in Europe, and
they carry out a 5 yearly assessment.  Whilst putting VALID
together, when canvassing local governments, urban forestry
academics, and solicitors representing local government in the UK,
New Zealand, Australia, and the US, there seems to be a general
agreement that a 5 year Active Assessment frequency is 'reasonable'
and 'proportionate'; particularly when it's
being
topped up by Passive Assessment.   Hence, the Tasmanian Government are
going to adopt a 5 year Active Assessment frequency on their roads.
It's why I'm proposing 5 years instead of 7 years 2 months.  Up to
now,
there's
been no benchmark for this.  I'm suggesting one that seems to be
widely agreed.  Have you got a better suggestion?

However, it's up to the duty holder to agree a frequency of
assessment
and
they can go for whatever they want.  They could even go for your
fatuous
7
years 2 months if they chose.  It's their call.  But if as a
profession
we
can get some kind of consistency, then when a legal claim is
inevitably made we're in a better position to justify this frequency
of assessment rather than be held hostage by highly questionable
expert witness testimony, resulting in equally questionable court
Judgments.  The court looks to our profession to set standards.
It's not the other way around, as some might claim.

<< In the case of KEW we know the number of visitors per year and
the number of hours workers have been on the grounds.  We wold know
similar numbers for many roads and public places, but we don't know
for many
other
places, thus how do you determine under VALID your three criteria.>>

I really have no idea what you're asking here.  But it looks like
you might've been confusing risk management with risk assessment
from the get go*.

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/
This MVDC email is only intended for the individual or organisation to
whom or which it is addressed and may contain, either in the body of the
email or attachment/s, information that is personal, confidential and/or
subject to copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, please note
that copying or distributing this message, attachment/s or other files
associated within this email, is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete
it.



--
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/