UKTC Archive

Re: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit Bankruptcy

Subject: Re: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit Bankruptcy
From: Wayne Tyson
Date: Dec 03 2019 17:53:50
Not to mention the corollary costs and the loss of the tree and whatever it
hits?

If the tree is going to be lost anyway, is the question is whether or not
to take preemptive action to minimize costs and losses?

Inspection costs, beginning with drive-bys and proceeding to further
investigate the details, is more that an employment act for tree
professionals, it is prudent public policy. Certainly more wise than
reacting to failures as an alternative--a policy that reminds me of the
infamously cynical Pinto gas tank scandals of decades past.

Wayne

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 6:20 AM Julian Morris <jamorris@xxxxx.com> wrote:

3700 miles x 2 sides = 7400 frontage miles. If 5 miles a day on average
could be done by an inspector on fot, that works out as 1480 days, and
based on 250 working days a year that's a full time job for 6 inspectors a
year. c. £200k. Not quite bankruptcy. Especially compared with the cost of
one negligence fatality a year.

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services
jamtrees.co.uk  and  highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 10:42 AM
From: dlj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com
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/