UKTC Archive

RE: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit

Subject: RE: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit
From: David Evans
Date: Dec 04 2019 20:24:58
<<It seems to me that 5 year inspections* as David keeps talking about is as 
arbitrary as  6 years>>

Hi Micheal

I've been a bit too busy training Validators in New Zealand to reply but have 
some time for you here.  Regrettably, I'm going to have to leave Julian 
wallowing in his Numberwang for a while yet.  I can only offer this brief 
foreplay to help him keep his interest up.

Firstly, they're not inspections*.  I've not used the word 'inspection' 

You have a really good point.  If you can show some examples of where a 6 
yearly frequency assessment is carried out by duty holders.  Or have pitched 
a 6 year baseline for an Active Assessment frequency topped up by Passive 
Assessment to duty holders, urban foresters, road risk assessors, academics, 
and solicitors from different countries as being reasonable, proportionate, 
and reasonably practicable, and they've agreed.  Then, a 6 yearly frequency 
assessment would be a sound starting point.

That said, as I also keeping talking about.  It's the duty holder's decision. 
 Each tree could have its full time arborist camped in it if the duty holder 
wanted.  It's their call.

Given the overall level of risk (proportionality, again), and the value of 
Passive Assessment (with training for outdoor workers).  I think there's a 
very strong case to be made for relying on Passive Assessment alone, and not 
bothering with Active Assessment at all.  It'd likely be a lot more effective 
at picking up those red risks than just Active Assessment.

<<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.>>

And this brings us back to the beginning, and the importance of the duty 
holder setting the agenda by adopting a Tree Risk-Benefit Management 
Strategy.  In the extremely unlikely event of a risk being realised, first 
and foremost, the challenge for any claimant would be to demonstrate that the 
duty holder's approach to risk management was not 'reasonable'.  As you say 
you've read VALID's Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategies (though I'm not 
convinced you have because you're using words like 'practical' instead of 
reasonably practicable, and 'inspection' instead of assessment), once you've 
got your head around the reasonable, proportionate, or reasonably practicable 
aspects of tree risk-benefit management, if you can point out anything in 
there that 'isn't', I'd appreciate it.


Acer Ventura

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy