UKTC Archive

Re: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit

Subject: Re: Windshield/Drive-by | Speed Limit
From: Michael Richardson
Date: Dec 05 2019 12:24:11
David it is quite embarrassing and you denigrate yourself and your work
with the continued hostility, innuendos, and claims of other's ignorance.

It would be nice to have an argument in the classic sense of the word but I
think it best  to discontinue and allow VALID to be used by those that
chose and the rest of us can chose to pay for VALID when you come to a
neighbourhood nearby, or simple continue with TRAQ, QTRA, VTA, and PTI. as
has been done for a decade or more..

Michael Richardson B.Sc.F., BCMA
Ontario MTCU Qualified Arborist
Richardson Tree Care


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 3:37 PM pwassenaer1022 <>

Atack attack attack...sell training is the answer.Invalid.Sent from my
Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: David Evans <> Date: 2019-12-04  10:25 a.m.  (GMT-10:00) To: UK
Tree Care <> 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://

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy