🚀 go-pugleaf

In connection with this issue I'd like to discuss the conflicting issues of
SAFETYor VISUAL AMENITY (beauty) as it would be called technically.

I'd like your views.

Many of us will have mature trees in places where they are a potential
hazard to the public but at the same time are a very important relief to
the stressfull nature of life.

For example an avenue of trees or a small park with trees in a city.

We all depend on these for our sanity. I don't suppose I am unusual to say
that to look up into the branches of a mature tree as I walk to work brings
a perspective to life's problems.

Yet we have people around us who are getting very conscious about safety to
life.Safety to such a degree that I wonder if life can still be enjoyed in
the same way if we carry their fears to their logical conclusion.

I believe we need to think carefully about what degree of safety we
require. 

We all take risks all the time.

 Often  in fact, this heightens are enjoyment. 

A common risk is crossing the road or using public transport, or eating
food of unknown origin. We cannot exist without taking these risks and it
seems logical that we need to accept a measurable degree of risk. 

It could be one in a million for instance ( I'm sure there are statistics
available)so if we cross the road we might expect to be hit once in every
million times we do it. Eg if we cross the road on average twenty times a
day we would get hit once in every 150 years. Seems acceptable!

Nothing is perfectly safe, but as long as it isn't a thing we do too often
we might accept the odds of one in a million. So if the odds are these for
catching BSE from beef and we eat beef once a day then we might die if we
ate beef once in about 3,000 years.

What we have to accept is that chance *might* come tomorrow ! !

But no, unthinking people want things to be "perfectly "safe which is
impossible. 

If we set ourselves a level of risk that we found acceptable then we could
make some sensible decisions.

In the specific case of the felling of these trees I would have thought a
much more logical approach was to examine the past history of trees/
branches landing in the road and then determine the average traffic on the
road either by car or on foot etc and from this we could determine the
likely probability of accident. 

If this was greater than say one in a million then we did nothing and said
that the trees were acceptably dangerous !  !

We would know that the chances would be higher in the middle of a storm but
we might still be willing to take a risk. We might have a notice that said
1:100,000 risk of falling tree in high wind in the same way we have the
speed to take corners in American roads!

This seems to me to be a far more reasonable approach than to say we want
the road to be "perfectly safe 

In response to the article where I wrote:

>The famous Rusland Beeches, which are situated between Coniston Water and
>Lake Windermere in the Lake District, north west England are to be
>completely destroyed unless we can reverse a recommendation made to  a
>meeting to be held on October 1st 1996. 

Bex responded and I add my responses:-

In article <FGYuoAA0wjHyEw4H@foscot.demon.co.uk>,
*** <bex@foscot.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>How do you know these trees are healthy ?

Two reports by experts, both agree for the most partwith the'facts' but
have have widely different interpretation of tentative data.

>What might they damage if they did shed branches or fell ?

At the worst one or two *might* have branches fall onto a country lane that
has traffic about four cars per hour.

>These are questions you *have* to have the answers to. No-one will thank
>you for *saving* a tree that subsequently kills someone. This scenario
>happened in my village a few years ago. A local teenager was killed by a
>'historic' tree that had been retained after a big campaign. After this
>tragedy the tree was cut down (no objectors).

I feel this is at the heart of the matter and needs further discussion.

>If you want to be taken seriously I would suggest you commision a report
>from a qualified arboricultural consultant (contact the Arboricultural
>Association for their list of approved consultants). They generally
>charge around 40 BP per hour so if there are a large number of trees
>involved you may be looking at a sizeable bill.

One survey done by the Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service
(AAIS) the other by two people with considerable experience in dealing with
the mature and ageing Beech trees.

>
>I work with trees and can tell you that if there is a real safety
>problem the trees will come down. Whoever owns a tree is legally
>responsible for damage to persons or property that it may cause.
>If the owner of these trees is told that they are unsafe, does nothing
>and someone is later hurt or killed, he or she will be facing a very
>expensive negligence claim.
>
>Fraid it all comes down to money (as usual).
>
>Final point: In the trade beech trees over about 130 years are generally
>viewed as a bit dodgy. This is because they often start shedding large
>branches and/or falling over. No problem so long as there is nothing
>vulnerable liable to be damaged.
>
>Good luck
>
>-- 
>bex

So on balance I would like these trees as I understand there have been only
one or two branches fall in the last five years even in high gales and many
of the trees that are said to be 'dangerous' are actually leaning away from
the road     AND the prevailing wind is blowing the trees AWAY from the
road.

I believe the decision to fell all the trees has been made by people who
haven't thought the matter through clearly!

What do you think?

Send your letters to the  Lake District National Park Authority, who are
making this final decision,   John Toothill ,  Oxenholme Rd, Kendal,
Cumbria LA9 7RL ( 01539 724555)

You can also write to the Friends of the Lake District who wield
considerable influence with the LDNPA In these matters. Secretary: Ian
Brodie, 3 Yard Seventy Seven, Highgate, Kendal. (01539 720788)

If you wish to Email me with your reaction, I can forward your message to
the above people. It will carry more weight if you give your home address. 

Email - geoff@tygh.demon.co.uk