UKTC Archive

RE: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit

Subject: RE: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit
From: pwassenaer1022
Date: Dec 04 2019 20:37:10
Atack attack attack...sell training is the answer.Invalid.Sent from my 
Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: David Evans 
<david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com> Date: 2019-12-04  10:25 a.m.  (GMT-10:00) To: UK 
Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> Subject: RE: Windshield/Drive-by | 
Speed Limit <<It seems to me that 5 year inspections* as David keeps talking 
about is as arbitrary as  6 years>>Hi MichealI'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' anywhere.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.CheersAcer Ventura-- The UK Tree Care 
mailing listTo unsubscribe send 
mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.infoThe UKTC is supported by Bosky 
Trees arboricultural consultancyhttp://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/